Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Significance testing is still wrong, and damages real lives : a brief reply to Spreckelsen and van der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker.

Gorard, S. (2017) 'Significance testing is still wrong, and damages real lives : a brief reply to Spreckelsen and van der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker.', Sociological research online., 22 (2). p. 11.

Abstract

This paper is a brief reply to two responses to a paper I published previously in this journal. In that first paper I presented a summary of part of the long-standing literature critical of the use of significance testing in real-life research, and reported again on how significance testing is abused, leading to invalid and therefore potentially damaging research outcomes. I illustrated and explained the inverse logic error that is routinely used in significance testing, and argued that all of this should now cease. Although clearly disagreeing with me, neither of the responses to my paper addressed these issues head on. One focussed mainly on arguing with things I had not said (such as that there are no other problems in social science). The other tried to argue either that the inverse logic error is not prevalent, or that there is some other unspecified way of presenting the results of significance testing that does not involve this error. This reply paper summarises my original points, deals with each response paper in turn, and then turns to an examination of how the responders use significance testing in practice in their own studies. All of them use significance testing exactly as I described in the original paper – with non-random cases, and using the probability of the observed data erroneously as though it were the probability of the hypothesis assumed in order to calculate the probability of the observed data.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
(262Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.4281
Date accepted:15 March 2017
Date deposited:17 March 2017
Date of first online publication:31 May 2017
Date first made open access:31 May 2018

Save or Share this output

Export:
Export
Look up in GoogleScholar