首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Psychology of Education >Uses and abuses of statistical significance tests and other statistical resources: a comparative study
【24h】

Uses and abuses of statistical significance tests and other statistical resources: a comparative study

机译:统计显着性检验和其他统计资源的使用和滥用:一项比较研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The empirical study we present here deals with a pedagogical issue that has not been thoroughly explored up until now in our field. Previous empirical studies in other sectors have identified the opinions of researchers about this topic, showing that completely unacceptable interpretations have been made of significance tests and other statistical resources. We tried to show the degree to which these errors of interpretation appear in a sample of university professors and researchers. To evaluate the beliefs and opinions of the university professors about certain methodological and statistical questions, we adapted the "Psychometrics Group Instrument" questionnaire by Mittag (1999) and Mittag and Thompson (Educational Researcher 29:14-20, 2000). We specifically wanted to detect opinions about: (1) avoiding inappropriate interpretations, (2) rectifying incorrect uses, (3) creating a debate on possible alternatives, and (4) proposing editorial changes in the publication criteria. In this study, we compare the results we obtained with those obtained by two other equivalent studies (Gordon, Journal of Vocational Educational Research 26:1-18, 2001; Mittag and Thompson, Educational Researcher 29:14-20, 2000). The characteristics of the sample and the scope of the results are described, and a critical reflection is carried out on typical misunderstandings in interpretation that show a worrisome lack of understanding of some basic methodological and statistical concepts.
机译:我们在这里进行的实证研究涉及的是一个教学问题,到目前为止,在我们的领域中尚未对此进行深入探讨。以前其他领域的经验研究已经确定了研究人员对该主题的观点,表明对显着性检验和其他统计资源的解释是完全不可接受的。我们试图显示这些解释错误在大学教授和研究人员样本中出现的程度。为了评估大学教授对某些方法论和统计问题的看法和信念,我们改编了Mittag(1999)和Mittag and Thompson(Educational Researcher 29:14-20,2000)的“ Psychometrics Group Instrument”问卷。我们特别想征询有关以下方面的意见:(1)避免做出不恰当的解释;(2)纠正不正确的用法;(3)就可能的替代方案进行辩论;(4)提议对出版标准进行编辑更改。在这项研究中,我们将获得的结果与其他两项等效研究(Gordon,职业教育研究杂志26:1-18,2001; Mittag和Thompson,教育研究者29:14-20,2000)进行比较。描述了样本的特征和结果的范围,并对解释中的典型误解进行了批判性反思,这些误解表明人们对某些基本的方法论和统计概念缺乏理解。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号