a Department of Health and Kinesiology , Texas A&M University , College Station , Texas , USA.
b Department of Health and Kinesiology , Texas A&M University , College Station , Texas , USA.
J Am Coll Health. 2019 Apr;67(3):181-188. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1470091. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
Understanding the unique health needs of college students and establishing best practices to address them depend, heavily, on the inherent quality and contribution of the research identifying these needs. College health-focused publications currently exemplify less than ideal statistical reporting practices. Specifically, college health practitioners and researchers continue to rely heavily upon null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) as the sole standard for effectiveness, validity, and/or replicability of scientific studies, even though NHST itself was not designed for such purposes. Herein we address the following questions: (a) What is NHST? (b) What are the inherent limitations of NHST? (c) What are recommended alternatives to NHST? and (d) How can editorial policies promote adopting NHST alternatives? Using college health data from the CORE 2011 Alcohol and Drug survey, we provide a heuristic example demonstrating how effect sizes do not suffer from the same limitations as NHST.
了解大学生独特的健康需求,并制定解决这些需求的最佳实践,在很大程度上取决于确定这些需求的研究的内在质量和贡献。目前,以大学生健康为重点的出版物体现了不太理想的统计报告实践。具体来说,大学生健康从业者和研究人员继续严重依赖零假设显著性检验(NHST)作为衡量科学研究有效性、有效性和/或可重复性的唯一标准,尽管 NHST 本身并不是为此目的而设计的。在此,我们将讨论以下问题:(a) 什么是 NHST?(b) NHST 的固有局限性是什么?(c) 推荐的替代方法是什么?(d) 社论政策如何促进采用 NHST 替代方法?我们使用 CORE 2011 酒精和毒品调查的大学生健康数据,提供了一个启发式示例,展示了效果大小如何不会受到与 NHST 相同的限制。