Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Physical Sciences and Mathematics
Statistical Pronouncements Ii, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Statistical Pronouncements Ii, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Deconstructing Arguments From The Case Against Hypothesis Testing, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Deconstructing Arguments From The Case Against Hypothesis Testing, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
The main purpose of this article is to contest the propositions that (1) hypothesis tests should be abandoned in favor of confidence intervals, and (2) science has not benefited from hypothesis testing. The minor purpose is to propose (1) descriptive statistics, graphics, and effect sizes do not obviate the need for hypothesis testing, (2) significance testing (reporting p values and leaving it to the reader to determine significance) is subjective and outside the realm of the scientific method, and (3) Bayesian and qualitative methods should be used for Bayesian and qualitative research studies, respectively.
You Think You’Ve Got Trivials?, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
You Think You’Ve Got Trivials?, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
Effect sizes are important for power analysis and meta-analysis. This has led to a debate on reporting effect sizes for studies that are not statistically significant. Contrary and supportive evidence has been offered on the basis of Monte Carlo methods. In this article, clarifications are given regarding what should be simulated to determine the possible effects of piecemeal publishing trivial effect sizes.
Trivials: The Birth, Sale, And Final Production Of Meta-Analysis, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Trivials: The Birth, Sale, And Final Production Of Meta-Analysis, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
The structure of the first invited debate in JMASM is to present a target article (Sawilowsky, 2003), provide an opportunity for a response (Roberts & Henson, 2003), and to follow with independent comments from noted scholars in the field (Knapp, 2003; Levin & Robinson, 2003). In this rejoinder, I provide a correction and a clarification in an effort to bring some closure to the debate. The intension, however, is not to rehash previously made points, even where I disagree with the response of Roberts & Henson (2003).
A Different Future For Social And Behavioral Science Research, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
A Different Future For Social And Behavioral Science Research, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
The dissemination of intervention and treatment outcomes as effect sizes bounded by conf idence intervals in order to think meta-analytically was promoted in a recent article in Educational Researcher. I raise concerns with unfettered reporting of effect sizes, point out the con in confidence interval, and caution against thinking meta-analytically. Instead, cataloging effect sizes is recommended for sample size estimation and power analysis to improve social and behavioral science research.
Statistical Pronouncements, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Statistical Pronouncements, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.