Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T17:16:24.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The critics rebutted: A Pyrrhic victory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 1998

Stephan Lewandowsky  and
Murray Maybery
Stephan Lewandowsky
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 6907, Australialewan@psy.uwa.edu.au www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/lewan/
Murray Maybery
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 6907, Australialewan@psy.uwa.edu.au www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/lewan/
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We take up two issues discussed by Chow: the claim by critics of hypothesis testing that the null hypothesis (H0) is always false, and the claim that reporting effect sizes is more appropriate than relying on statistical significance. Concerning the former, we agree with Chow's sentiment despite noting serious shortcomings in his discussion. Concerning the latter, we agree with Chow that effect size need not translate into scientific relevance, and furthermore reiterate that with small samples effect size measures cannot substitute for significance.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 210 - 211
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press