The New Statistics

By Geoff Cumming. Psychology Science, 2014

2,086 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ad6d501eac936c9d9b780eca017d5d1d1e59fae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Life After NHST: How to Describe Your Data Without “p-ing” Everywhere (2015, background): “…criticisms, responses, and suggested alternatives that led us here would take more space than we have, but interested readers will find thoughtful arguments by Abelson (1997), Boruch (2007), Cohen (1994), Cumming (2014), Hagen (1997), Harris (1993),1 Schmidt and Hunter (1997), and Trafimow (2003).”
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research (2014, background): “Consequently, the practice of reporting effect sizes in L2 research appears to be increasing rapidly (Plonsky, 2014; Plonsky & Gass, 2011), following the recommended practices in psychology (Cumming, 2014).”
Statistical Rituals: The Replication Delusion and How We Got There (2018, background): “In general, the chance of replicating a finding depends on many factors (e.g., Cumming, 2008, 2014; Greenwald, Gonzalez, Harris, & Guthrie, 1996), most of which the researcher cannot know for sure, such as whether the null or the alternative hypothesis is true.”
Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgement: The mediating role of action aversion (2015, methodology): “For all the analyses performed, we present the recommended confidence intervals for estimators and effect sizes (Cumming, 2014) generated using resampling and bootstrapping methods.”
Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes (2016, methodology): “Recommendations for planning sample sizes may differ depending on whether they focus on power for NHST or whether they focus on precision for effect size estimations (e.g., Cumming, 2014; Sch€onbrodt & Perugini, 2013).”
Sample size estimation for correlations with pre-specified confidence interval (2014, positive): “However, Beaulieu-Prévost (2006) and Cumming (2014) pointed out serious problems with the null hypothesis power analysis, and recommended instead that estimations should be based on effect sizes and confidence intervals.”
Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science (2019, background): “…of ongoing concerns regarding statistical best practices across the cognitive and neurosciences (e.g., Carp, 2012a, 2012b; Chabris et al., 2012; Cumming, 2013a, 2013b; Ioannidis, 2005; Kriegeskorte et al., 2009; Lieberman & Cunningham, 2009; Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Simmons, Nelson &…”
Who lies? A large-scale reanalysis linking basic personality traits to unethical decision making (2018, neutral): “However, given that cumulative science needs to go beyond testing whether a link exists, but rather provide an unbiased and precise estimate of the corresponding effect size (Cumming, 2014; Meehl, 1990), the current state of knowledge remains unsatisfactory.”