Hoekstra Rink, Finch Sue, Kiers Henk A L, Johnson Addie
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruistraat 2/1, Groningen 9712 TS, The Netherlands.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Dec;13(6):1033-7. doi: 10.3758/bf03213921.
Significance testing is widely used and often criticized. The Task Force on Statistical Inference of the American Psychological Association (TFSI, APA; Wilkinson & TFSI, 1999) addressed the use of significance testing and made recommendations that were incorporated in the fifth edition of the APA Publication Manual (APA, 2001). They emphasized the interpretation of significance testing and the importance of reporting confidence intervals and effect sizes. We examined whether 286 Psychonomic Bulletin & Review articles submitted before and after the publication of the TFSI recommendations by APA complied with these recommendations. Interpretation errors when using significance testing were still made frequently, and the new prescriptions were not yet followed on a large scale. Changing the practice of reporting statistics seems doomed to be a slow process.
显著性检验被广泛使用且常遭批评。美国心理学会统计推断特别工作组（TFSI，APA；威尔金森和TFSI，1999）探讨了显著性检验的使用情况，并提出了相关建议，这些建议被纳入了《美国心理学会出版手册》第五版（APA，2001）。他们强调了显著性检验的解释以及报告置信区间和效应量的重要性。我们研究了在APA发布TFSI建议之前和之后提交给《心理onomic通报与评论》的286篇文章是否符合这些建议。使用显著性检验时的解释错误仍然频繁出现，新的规定尚未得到大规模遵循。改变统计报告的做法似乎注定是一个缓慢的过程。
