Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math.independent

Topic: On the behalf of Psychologists
and similar researcher´s fauna

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Luis A. Afonso

Posts: 4,617
From: LIsbon (Portugal)
Registered: 2/16/05
On the behalf of Psychologists
and similar researcher´s fauna

Posted: Jun 10, 2014 6:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On the behalf of Psychologists and similar researcher´s fauna

1. - NHST was not designed to ascertain that the Null Hypothesis is true or untrue. Instead to traditional Logic they are concerned with two chosen Hypothesis Null H0 and Alternative Ha (Neyman-Pearson algorithm) the criterion being to opt by the more likely after setting a large probability (0.95/0.99) not to reject H0.
2. - By the above later sentence when it happens to fail to reject H0 i.e. the value of the test not falling at the Rejection Interval, we are not aware to state that the Null Hypothesis is true. Instead we should say that we not found sufficient evidence that the Null is unlike.
3. - To reject H0 (statistical significance) is a consequence that the difference of the observed quantity and that concerned the Null cannot be ascribed to random fluctuations. It does not inform how large the difference is, and much less the practical/economic worth.
3.a - An adequately chosen quantity a0 can be added to null in order that, in case of significance, this quantity is assured to be really present.

Luis A. Afonso



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.