Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.

<h4>Background</h4>Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) is the most familiar statistical procedure for making inferences about population effects. Important problems associated with this method have been addressed and various alternatives that overcome these problems have been dev...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jonah Stunt, Leonie van Grootel, Lex Bouter, David Trafimow, Trynke Hoekstra, Michiel de Boer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e9ad47662d734b5dbd15f40e68ba0801
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e9ad47662d734b5dbd15f40e68ba0801
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e9ad47662d734b5dbd15f40e68ba08012021-12-02T20:13:40ZWhy we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0258330https://doaj.org/article/e9ad47662d734b5dbd15f40e68ba08012021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258330https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) is the most familiar statistical procedure for making inferences about population effects. Important problems associated with this method have been addressed and various alternatives that overcome these problems have been developed. Despite its many well-documented drawbacks, NHST remains the prevailing method for drawing conclusions from data. Reasons for this have been insufficiently investigated. Therefore, the aim of our study was to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators related to the use of NHST and alternative statistical procedures among relevant stakeholders in the scientific system.<h4>Methods</h4>Individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with junior and senior researchers, lecturers in statistics, editors of scientific journals and program leaders of funding agencies. During the focus groups, important themes that emerged from the interviews were discussed. Data analysis was performed using the constant comparison method, allowing emerging (sub)themes to be fully explored. A theory substantiating the prevailing use of NHST was developed based on the main themes and subthemes we identified.<h4>Results</h4>Twenty-nine interviews and six focus groups were conducted. Several interrelated facilitators and barriers associated with the use of NHST and alternative statistical procedures were identified. These factors were subsumed under three main themes: the scientific climate, scientific duty, and reactivity. As a result of the factors, most participants feel dependent in their actions upon others, have become reactive, and await action and initiatives from others. This may explain why NHST is still the standard and ubiquitously used by almost everyone involved.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings demonstrate how perceived barriers to shift away from NHST set a high threshold for actual behavioral change and create a circle of interdependency between stakeholders. By taking small steps it should be possible to decrease the scientific community's strong dependence on NHST and p-values.Jonah StuntLeonie van GrootelLex BouterDavid TrafimowTrynke HoekstraMichiel de BoerPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0258330 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jonah Stunt Leonie van Grootel Lex Bouter David Trafimow Trynke Hoekstra Michiel de Boer Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) is the most familiar statistical procedure for making inferences about population effects. Important problems associated with this method have been addressed and various alternatives that overcome these problems have been developed. Despite its many well-documented drawbacks, NHST remains the prevailing method for drawing conclusions from data. Reasons for this have been insufficiently investigated. Therefore, the aim of our study was to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators related to the use of NHST and alternative statistical procedures among relevant stakeholders in the scientific system.<h4>Methods</h4>Individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with junior and senior researchers, lecturers in statistics, editors of scientific journals and program leaders of funding agencies. During the focus groups, important themes that emerged from the interviews were discussed. Data analysis was performed using the constant comparison method, allowing emerging (sub)themes to be fully explored. A theory substantiating the prevailing use of NHST was developed based on the main themes and subthemes we identified.<h4>Results</h4>Twenty-nine interviews and six focus groups were conducted. Several interrelated facilitators and barriers associated with the use of NHST and alternative statistical procedures were identified. These factors were subsumed under three main themes: the scientific climate, scientific duty, and reactivity. As a result of the factors, most participants feel dependent in their actions upon others, have become reactive, and await action and initiatives from others. This may explain why NHST is still the standard and ubiquitously used by almost everyone involved.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings demonstrate how perceived barriers to shift away from NHST set a high threshold for actual behavioral change and create a circle of interdependency between stakeholders. By taking small steps it should be possible to decrease the scientific community's strong dependence on NHST and p-values.
format	article
author	Jonah Stunt Leonie van Grootel Lex Bouter David Trafimow Trynke Hoekstra Michiel de Boer
author_facet	Jonah Stunt Leonie van Grootel Lex Bouter David Trafimow Trynke Hoekstra Michiel de Boer
author_sort	Jonah Stunt
title	Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
title_short	Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
title_full	Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
title_fullStr	Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
title_full_unstemmed	Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.
title_sort	why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: a qualitative study.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e9ad47662d734b5dbd15f40e68ba0801
work_keys_str_mv	AT jonahstunt whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy AT leonievangrootel whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy AT lexbouter whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy AT davidtrafimow whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy AT trynkehoekstra whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy AT michieldeboer whywehabituallyengageinnullhypothesissignificancetestingaqualitativestudy
_version_	1718374799333392384

Why we habitually engage in null-hypothesis significance testing: A qualitative study.

Ejemplares similares