Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative¶
Anderson, B., & Thompson. (2000). Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative. The Journal of Wildlife Management.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Null Ritual
- Psychology — Gigerenzer's original diagnostic turf, where the bulk of the documented cases live: mechanical p < .05 verdicts published without an alternative, an effect size that matters, or a decision the test informs. Biomedical research — Ioannidis's account of why most published findings are false rests on the same detached procedure inflating false positives across the clinical and life-science literature. Econometrics — Ziliak and McCloskey's "cult of statistical significance" documents the identical hollowed test, "significant" coefficients reported with no attention to the magnitude that would matter for policy. Ecology and environmental science — Anderson, Burnham, and Thompson's vocal critique targets ritualized testing in field studies, urging model-selection and effect-size reporting instead
This sourceReports a review and critique of pervasive null-hypothesis testing in ecological and wildlife studies that recommends information-theoretic (Kullback-Leibler) model selection and attention to effect sizes.
SupportedVerified against the publisher's abstract
“This paper presents a review and critique of statistical null hypothesis testing in ecological studies in general, and wildlife studies in particular, and describes an alternative.”
- Psychology — Gigerenzer's original diagnostic turf, where the bulk of the documented cases live: mechanical p < .05 verdicts published without an alternative, an effect size that matters, or a decision the test informs. Biomedical research — Ioannidis's account of why most published findings are false rests on the same detached procedure inflating false positives across the clinical and life-science literature. Econometrics — Ziliak and McCloskey's "cult of statistical significance" documents the identical hollowed test, "significant" coefficients reported with no attention to the magnitude that would matter for policy. Ecology and environmental science — Anderson, Burnham, and Thompson's vocal critique targets ritualized testing in field studies, urging model-selection and effect-size reporting instead
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:59fb1db4b07b · see in the full table