
pmid: 3771906
We respond to the preceding article by Perry (J. Econ. Entomol. 79: 1149–1155) concerning the subject of hypothesis testing and meaningful presentation of statistical analyses. We agree with Perry that indiscriminate use of statistical hypothesis testing should be discouraged. We also address and refute reasons often given to support continued emphasis on hypothesis testing. We conclude that biologists should take the responsibility for evaluating whether or not the magnitude of the difference between population parameters or treatment effects is biologically important, instead of merely testing for whether such a difference exists. We recommend that authors display the estimate of the difference and the confidence limit for this difference. These statistics, along with the standard error, contain the most information: their presentation provides the clearest and most meaningful format of the statistical analyses.
Research Design, Statistics as Topic
Research Design, Statistics as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 30 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
