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).

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.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

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?

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.”

“The primary product of a research inquiry is one or more measures of effect size, not p values.”
~ Jacob Cohen

“Statistical significance is the least interesting thing about the results. You should describe the results in terms of measures of magnitude – not just, does a treatment affect people, but how much does it affect them.”
~ Gene Glass

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.”