Promoting Good Statistical Practices: Some Suggestions

By Roger E. Kirk. 2001

196 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e1af6ff3258b3adcd24ac6672957e9d857d1888

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

A Primer on the Understanding, Use, and Calculation of Confidence Intervals that are Based on Central and Noncentral Distributions (2001, background): “As Kirk (2001) noted in his recent EPM article,”
Effect Size, Confidence Intervals and Statistical Power in Psychological Research (2015, background): “Nonetheless, in the foregoing, Kirk (2001) argues that science would gain greater benefits if a researcher was focused on the magnitude of an effect and its practical significance, believing as well that “No one is in a better position than the researcher who collected and analyzed the data to…”
Students’ misconceptions of statistical inference: A review of the empirical evidence from research on statistics education (2007, background): “Finally, inferential ideas seem to be especially sensitive to be misunderstood and students are often prone to fall into deep misconceptions (Daniel, 1998; Kirk, 2001) because they require students to understand and connect many abstract concepts such as sampling distribution and significance level.”
The Use of Structural Equation Modeling in Counseling Psychology Research (2005, result): “This result is somewhat surprising in light of the increased attention in the psychological literature to reporting effect sizes (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Kirk, 2001; Wilkinson & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999) and the ease that such effects can be reported via SEM (in Windows-based…”
Fair Statistical Communication in HCI (2016, background): “p-values capture what is traditionally termed statistical significance, while effect sizes capture practical significance (Kirk, 2001).”
What Future Quantitative Social Science Research Could Look Like: Confidence Intervals for Effect Sizes (2002, background): “A brighter day is dawning in which researchers will ask not only if a sample result is likely but also if an effect is practically noteworthy or replicable (Kirk, 1996, 2001).”
Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations. (2005, background): “We reiterate the frequent admonition (e.g., Kirk, 1996, 2001; Wilkinson & the APA Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999) that the primary focus of research should not be to obtain significant p values but rather to determine what the data tell us about the phenomena of interest—that is, effect”
Beyond small, medium, or large: points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes (2019, background): “(Kirk, 2001, p. 213) The first question has been the topic of much debate, particularly in relation to the use and misuse of p values (Nuzzo, 2014; Trafimow & Marks, 2015; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016).”
Computation of measures of effect size for neuroscience data sets (2011, background): “…have been many articles highlighting the shortcomings of NHST in a variety of research areas, among them medicine (Fleiss, 1986; Goodman, 1999a,b), biology (Nakagawa, 2004), ergonomics (Vicente & Torenvliet, 2000), consumer research (Iacobucci, 2005) and education (Kirk, 1996, 2001; Morgan, 2003).”
A Comprehensive Review of Effect Size Reporting and Interpreting Practices in Academic Journals in Education and Psychology. (2010, background): “The p-values estimate the probability of sample results deviating as much or more than do the actual sample results from those specified by the null hypothesis (Cohen, 1994; Kirk, 2001).”
The Fifth edition of the Apa Publication Manual: Why its Statistics Recommendations are so Controversial (2002, methodology): “Roger Kirk (2001), for example, argued that “the APA Publication Manual and similar manuals are the ultimate change agents” (p. 217).”
Deferential Differentiation (2011, background): “Unlike objective measures of statistical significance, determinations of practical significance are more subjective (Kirk, 2001).”