[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i1p2158244014567685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Statistical Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Veazie
Abstract
Statistical hypothesis testing is common in research, but a conventional understanding sometimes leads to mistaken application and misinterpretation. The logic of hypothesis testing presented in this article provides for a clearer understanding, application, and interpretation. Key conclusions are that (a) the magnitude of an estimate on its raw scale (i.e., not calibrated by the standard error) is irrelevant to statistical testing; (b) which statistical hypotheses are tested cannot generally be known a priori; (c) if an estimate falls in a hypothesized set of values, that hypothesis does not require testing; (d) if an estimate does not fall in a hypothesized set, that hypothesis requires testing; (e) the point in a hypothesized set that produces the largest p value is used for testing; and (f) statistically significant results constitute evidence, but insignificant results do not and must not be interpreted as evidence for or against the hypothesis being tested.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Veazie, 2015. "Understanding Statistical Testing," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(1), pages 21582440145, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:2158244014567685
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014567685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014567685
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014567685?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "The rhetoric of 'Signifying nothing': a rejoinder to Ziliak and McCloskey," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 57-68.
    2. Ziliak, Stephen T. & McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2004. "Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 527-546, November.
    3. Kan, Kamhon, 2007. "Cigarette smoking and self-control," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 61-81, January.
    4. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-37.
    5. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further comments on McCloskey & Ziliak," CREATES Research Papers 2009-17, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    6. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
    7. Deirdre McCloskey & Stephen Ziliak, 2008. "Signifying nothing: reply to Hoover and Siegler," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 39-55.
    8. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. economic significance in economics and econometrics: further comments on McCloskey and Ziliak," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 393-408.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sylwia Lewicka & Barbara Piotrowska & Aneta Łukaszek-Chmielewska & Tomasz Drzymała, 2022. "Assessment of Natural Radioactivity in Cements Used as Building Materials in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.
    2. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 61, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 126, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    4. Kim, Jae H. & Ji, Philip Inyeob, 2015. "Significance testing in empirical finance: A critical review and assessment," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Alexander Libman & Joachim Zweynert, 2014. "Ceremonial Science: The State of Russian Economics Seen Through the Lens of the Work of ‘Doctor of Science’ Candidates," Working Papers 337, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    6. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further comments on McCloskey & Ziliak," CREATES Research Papers 2009-17, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    7. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2013. "We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 97-107, January.
    8. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    9. Libman, Alexander & Zweynert, Joachim, 2014. "Ceremonial science: The state of Russian economics seen through the lens of the work of ‘Doctor of Science’ candidates," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 360-378.
    10. Jason P Brown & Dayton M Lambert & Timothy R Wojan, 2019. "The Effect of the Conservation Reserve Program on Rural Economies: Deriving a Statistical Verdict from a Null Finding," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 528-540.
    11. Thomas Mayer, 2009. "Honesty and Integrity in Economics," Working Papers 92, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    12. Meszaros, Sandor, 2008. "Theory testing (hypothesis testing) in agricultural economics," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 107, pages 1-13, March.
    13. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2018. "A history of statistical methods in experimental economics," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1455-1492, November.
    14. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 2012. "Statistical Significance in the New Tom and the Old Tom: A Reply to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 298-308, September.
    15. Edsel L. Beja Jr., 2018. "Testing the easterlin paradox: Results and policy implications," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(2), pages 79-83, September.
    16. John S.L. McCombie & Ioana Negru, 2014. "On economic paradigms, rhetoric and the micro-foundations of macroeconomics," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(1), pages 53-66, April.
    17. Plöckinger, Martin & Aschauer, Ewald & Hiebl, Martin R.W. & Rohatschek, Roman, 2016. "The influence of individual executives on corporate financial reporting: A review and outlook from the perspective of upper echelons theory," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 55-75.
    18. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," Working Papers halshs-01651070, HAL.
    19. Jae H. Kim & Kamran Ahmed & Philip Inyeob Ji, 2018. "Significance Testing in Accounting Research: A Critical Evaluation Based on Evidence," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 524-546, December.
    20. Pinto, Hugo, 2011. "The role of econometrics in economic science: An essay about the monopolization of economic methodology by econometric methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 436-443, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:2158244014567685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.