You say journal editors and academy presidents have called for researchers to interpret the substantive, as opposed to the statistical, significance of their results. Which editors exactly?

So far; Campbell (1982), Cummings (2007), Hambrick (1994), JEP (2003), Kendall (1997), La Greca (2005), Levant (1992), Lustig and Strauser (2004), Shaver (2006, 2008), Thompson (2002).

See also Wilkinson and the Taskforce on Statistical Inference (1999), the Publication Manual of the APA (2010, p.35), and the AERA’s Standards for Reporting (AERA 2006, p.10).

For a full list of references, click here.

About these ads

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 30th, 2010 at 11:50 pm and is filed under interpreting results, substantive significance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to You say journal editors and academy presidents have called for researchers to interpret the substantive, as opposed to the statistical, significance of their results. Which editors exactly?

Isabel Gauthier says:

February 27, 2011 at 8:12 am

Notice that the new guidelines for the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General are explicit on this question:

“Authors are urged to consider reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals around them and to discuss the substantive significance of their results in addition to their statistical significance.”

Reply

Effect Size FAQs