You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access 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.
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
The need to compare and combine data quantitatively is becoming more frequent in studies of animal behaviour, ecology and conservation. Using a hypothetical data set, I point out some limitations of combining and comparing data using Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST). First, I discuss three different aspects of data analysis that should regularly be considered: (1) effect size estimation, (2) confidence intervals estimation and, (3) power analysis. I then suggest meta-analysis as a sensible alternative method to account for some limitations of NHST. Meta-analysis is a quantitative technique for the combination and comparison of independent but similar studies. Meta-analysis allows comparison and summary of effect sizes across studies. When testing hypotheses framed in evolutionary theory, where small effects may have profound consequences, a knowledge of the magnitude of the association may be as important as knowing whether the data comply with the arbitrary, sacred and dogmatic significance criterion of p < 0.05.
Oikos © 1997 Nordic Society Oikos