Reference
Astrid Fritz, Thomas Scherndl, Anton Kühberger “A comprehensive review of reporting practices in psychological journals: Are effect sizes really enough?” (2012) // Theory & Psychology. Publisher: SAGE Publications. Vol. 23. No 1. Pp. 98–122. DOI: 10.1177/0959354312436870
Bib
@Article{fritz2012,
title = {A comprehensive review of reporting practices in psychological journals: Are effect sizes really enough?},
volume = {23},
issn = {1461-7447},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354312436870},
doi = {10.1177/0959354312436870},
number = {1},
journal = {Theory & Psychology},
publisher = {SAGE Publications},
author = {Fritz, Astrid and Scherndl, Thomas and Kühberger, Anton},
year = {2012},
month = {jun},
pages = {98–122}
}
Quotes (1)
The 3% Usage of Power Analysis
Over-reliance on significance testing has been heavily criticized in psychology. Therefore the American Psychological Association recommended supplementing the p value with additional elements such as effect sizes, confidence intervals, and considering statistical power seriously. This article elaborates the conclusions that can be drawn when these measures accompany the p value. An analysis of over 30 summary papers (including over 6,000 articles) reveals that, if at all, only effect sizes are reported in addition to p’s (38%). Only every 10th article provides a confidence interval and statistical power is reported in only 3% of articles.