Category: The New Statistics

The persistence of NHST: “Wilfully stupid”?

I recently gave a research talk to Psychology at La Trobe, my old University–although I now live an hour out of the city and rarely visit the campus. I decided to turn things around from my previous few talks: Instead

Posted in NHST, Replication, The New Statistics

Significance Roulette 2

In my post of a couple of days ago I gave the link to¬†Significance Roulette 1, a video that¬†explains how to generate the roulette wheel for a ‘typical experiment’, by which I meant an independent groups experiment, N = 32

Posted in ITNS, NHST, Replication, The New Statistics

Significance Roulette 1

If you run an experiment, obtain p = .05, then repeat the experiment–exactly the same but with a new sample–what p value are you likely to get? The answer, surprisingly, is just about any value! In other words, the sampling

Posted in ITNS, NHST, Replication, The New Statistics

A conference about–wait for it–the p value! But other things too.

In March 2016 the American Statistical Association (ASA) posted online a policy statement about the p value. You can see it here. This was remarkable–for one thing because it was the first time the ASA had made a public pronouncement

Posted in NHST, Open Science, The New Statistics

Wise words from Ken Rothman, who is statistical reform royalty

I (Geoff) recently came across an article published in 2014 with the title Six Persistent Research Misconceptions. All six are important, but it’s no. 6 that would be most familiar to anyone reading ITNS: Misconception 6. Significance testing is useful

Posted in NHST, The New Statistics

The first review

The first review of ITNS on Amazon: If you are reading ITNS, you too may care to post a review? Geoff    

Posted in ITNS, Open Science, The New Statistics

“Corrupt research” – Quite a book title

I’ve just finished reading a great book: Hubbard, R. (2015). Corrupt research. Sage. I’ve just given it a five-star review on Amazon. In brief, Hubbard is highly–as in extremely highly–critical of the conventional ‘significant difference’ paradigm, centred on finding p

Posted in NHST, Open Science, The New Statistics

MoE, the Margin of Error: What the New York Times says

The title of this NYT article is a good summary: “When You Hear the Margin of Error Is Plus or Minus 3 Percent, Think 7 Instead”. The NYT piece is based on this article by famous statistician (imagine that!) Andrew

Posted in Applied research, The New Statistics

Now streaming from YouTube: ITNS videos

There are 38 videos that come with ITNS. They aim to explain ideas and, in many cases, to walk through using ESCI to see cool things, or analyse data and make nice data pictures. Pictures with CIs, of course. I’ve

Posted in Open Science, The New Statistics