Misconceptions Leading to Choosing the t Test Over the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test for Shift in Location Parameter

There exist many misconceptions in choosing the t over the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test when testing for shift. Examples are given in the following three groups: (1) false statement, (2) true premise, but false conclusion, and (3) true statement irrelevant in choosing between the t test and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test

Fermat, Schubert, Einstein, and Behrens-Fisher: The Probable Difference Between Two Means When σ_1^2≠σ_2^2

The history of the Behrens-Fisher problem and some approximate solutions are reviewed. In outlining relevant statistical hypotheses on the probable difference between two means, the importance of the Behrens- Fisher problem from a theoretical perspective is acknowledged, but it is concluded that this problem is irrelevant for applied research in psychology, education, and related disciplines. The focus is better placed on “shift in location” and, more importantly, “shift in location and change in scale” treatment alternatives

Fermat, Schubert, Einstein, and Behrens-Fisher: The Probable Difference Between Two Means When σ\u3csub\u3e1\u3c/sub\u3e\u3csup\u3e2\u3c/sup\u3e≠ σ\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3e\u3csup\u3e2\u3c/sup\u3e

The history of the Behrens-Fisher problem and some approximate solutions are reviewed. In outlining relevant statistical hypotheses on the probable difference between two means, the importance of the Behrens- Fisher problem from a theoretical perspective is acknowledged, but it is concluded that this problem is irrelevant for applied research in psychology, education, and related disciplines. The focus is better placed on “shift in location” and, more importantly, “shift in location and change in scale” treatment alternatives

A Different Future For Social And Behavioral Science Research

The dissemination of intervention and treatment outcomes as effect sizes bounded by conf idence intervals in order to think meta-analytically was promoted in a recent article in Educational Researcher. I raise concerns with unfettered reporting of effect sizes, point out the con in confidence interval, and caution against thinking meta-analytically. Instead, cataloging effect sizes is recommended for sample size estimation and power analysis to improve social and behavioral science research

Statistical Reanalysis of Jewish Priests’ and Non-Priests’ Haplotypes Using Exact Methods

Researchers in an article appearing in Nature used asymptotic (i.e., large sample) chi-square tests in analyzing haplotypes of Y chromosomes using the polymerase chain reaction applied to genomic DNA from male Israeli, North American, and British Jews. The use of classical methods for analyzing extremely sparse contingency tables is frequently done, but with the advent of statistical software capable of conducting exact tests, researchers should certainly cease relying on outdated methods for small sample analyses. A reanalysis was conducted using modern statistical methods. Results and implications for using exact tests are discussed

New Effect Size Rules of Thumb

Recommendations to expand Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb for interpreting effect sizes are given to include very small, very large, and huge effect sizes. The reasons for the expansion, and implications for designing Monte Carlo studies, are discussed

Deconstructing Arguments From The Case Against Hypothesis Testing

The main purpose of this article is to contest the propositions that (1) hypothesis tests should be abandoned in favor of confidence intervals, and (2) science has not benefited from hypothesis testing. The minor purpose is to propose (1) descriptive statistics, graphics, and effect sizes do not obviate the need for hypothesis testing, (2) significance testing (reporting p values and leaving it to the reader to determine significance) is subjective and outside the realm of the scientific method, and (3) Bayesian and qualitative methods should be used for Bayesian and qualitative research studies, respectively

The Protective-Style Questionnaire: Self-protective Mechanisms Among Stigmatized Adolescents

Crocker and Major (1989) hypothesized three mechanisms by which members of stigmatized groups may protect self-esteem. The mechanisms are: a) ingroup social comparisons, b) valuing/devaluing performance selectively, and c) racial prejudice. We provide a test of Crocker and Major’s hypothesized mechanisms with the development of the Protective Style Questionnaire which was administered to a sample of 78 African-American adolescents. Evidence of high internal consistency reliability (about .86) and factor loadings support the orthogonality of the three mechanisms. Results showed varying levels of endorsement of each mechanism