You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Denes Szucs, John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Abstract |
Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has several shortcomings that are likely contributing factors behind the widely debated replication crisis of (cognitive) neuroscience, psychology, and biomedical science in general. We review these shortcomings and suggest that, after sustained negative experience, NHST should no longer be the default, dominant statistical practice of all biomedical and psychological research. If theoretical predictions are weak we should not rely on all or nothing hypothesis tests. Different inferential methods may be most suitable for different types of research questions. Whenever researchers use NHST they should justify its use, and publish pre-study power calculations and effect sizes, including negative findings. Hypothesis-testing studies should be pre-registered and optimally raw data published. The current statistics lite educational approach for students that has sustained the widespread, spurious use of NHST should be phased out. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 136 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 5% |
| Ireland | 4 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 93 | 68% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 88 | 65% |
| Scientists | 33 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 576 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 570 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 109 | 19% |
| Researcher | 93 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 63 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 6% |
| Other | 113 | 20% |
| Unknown | 118 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 118 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 51 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 146 | 25% |
| Unknown | 153 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#472,083
of 26,238,332 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#202
of 7,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,589
of 332,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,238,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.