You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Rejoinder: Editorial Policies regarding Statistical Significance Tests: Further Comments
Vol. 26, No. 5 (Jun. - Jul., 1997), pp. 29-32
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176545
Page Count: 4
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In this response to Robinson and Levin's comments on Thompson (1996), it is argued that describing results as "significant" rather than "statistically significant" is confusing to those persons most susceptible to misinterpreting this telegraphic wording. Contrary to Robinson and Levin's view, it is noted that the utility of the characterization of results as being due to "nonchance" is limited by the nature of the null hypothesis assumed to be true. It is suggested that effect sizes are important to interpret, even though they too can be misinterpreted; recent empirical studies of publications indicate that effect sizes are still too rarely reported. Finally, the value of "external" replicability analyses is acknowledged, but it is argued that "internal" replicability analyses can also be useful, and certainly are superior to statistical significance tests regarding evaluating result replicability, because statistical significance tests do not evaluate replicability.
Educational Researcher © 1997 American Educational Research Association