Please help with assignment
Respond thoughtfully to at least two classmates
Madison Simons
First and foremost, I found the most straightforward definition of NHST, “null hypothesis testing is a method of statistical inference by which an experimental factor is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship based on a given observation” (Pernet, 2015). NHST is a widely used method but Schoot et al. (2011) demonstrates that null hypothesis testing is traditional and not always the most appropriate method to opt for. This same article goes on to even point out how adamant the American Psychological Association is about NHST because it is the starting point for all statistical analyses. Schoot et al. (2011) point out the advances in statistical technology and the many different ways to test data such as evaluating informative hypotheses over testing the traditional null hypothesis. In addition, NHST has strengths and weaknesses. For example, there are many false positives that have been published and they can not be replicated and the p-value (p-hacking) has been messed around with a lot (Psychological Science, 2014). But the strengths of NHST are that they serve a great purpose- to be the backbone of hypothesis testing. NHST also allows researchers to find out if their data is significantly sound.
Learning about PRISMA has been so eye-opening and helped me advance my review paper significantly. I can not recommend it enough. By creating a PRISMA diagram I have been able to visually depict how I completed my iterative search for readers to understand my process at a higher level. The PRISMA checklist outlines exactly what is expected of a systematic review paper and I have started using it for my capstone. The checklist mentions that the introduction includes the rationale and objectives which are not out of the ordinary for a paper so I would say this part is similar to the empirical capstone paper. I also noticed that this checklist makes the methods and results section the meat and potatoes of the review. I really like the high level of transparency the PRISMA checklist ensures. For example, the methods section includes an information sources subsection that requests all databases utilized. When it comes to article choice and data extraction there is the search strategy, the selection process, and the data collection process which highlight the exact information that is being used for the review. By doing this the author is able to reduce the bias because everything is out in the open for readers. One thing that makes article choice different is that it is based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.
References
Pernet C. (2015). Null hypothesis significance testing: a short tutorial. F1000Research, 4, 621.
Psychological Science. (2014). The New Statistics: Research Integrity & the New Statistics (Workshop Part 2). Www.youtube.com.
Van de Schoot R, Hoijtink H and Jan-Willem R (2011) Moving beyond traditional null hypothesis testing: evaluating expectations directly. Front. Psychology 2:24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00024
Bradley Franko
To begin, I believe the author is trying to provide modern solutions of research integrity and new statistics for the replication crisis that has struck the field of psychology. Research integrity involves having a clear, planned, and pre-specified experiment with results published in full. In addition, he proposes ethical review boards that clearly define the rules around research and rewards replicated findings.
The strengths of the NHST are that it provides a logical framework for testing hypotheses, a common statistical analysis across other sciences, and has been historically validated from repetition. Contrary to the strengths, it still has its weaknesses which include that it is difficult to interpret what high or low p-values truly mean about the hypothesis and it also gives us a false sense of significance/ importance based on those p-values. I still believe the psychological research community should adopt the new statistics prepositions and continue to build with increasing standards.
The new PRISMA statement defines guidelines for transparently evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Like the new statistics direction, the PRISMA statement aims to improve the current standards we utilize for validating research. Uniquely, the PRISMA deals with what items need to be described in reports such as study design, search strategy, and data methods while the NHST describes the statistical procedures used to test a hypothesis. I feel like the new statistics direction focuses on how we conduct science while the PRISMA statement focuses on how we consume and apply science.
References
Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow, et al. The PRISMA (2020) Statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
Psychological Sciences (2014). The New Statistics: Research Integrity & The New Statistics (Workshop Part 2). YouTube.
