Literature DB >> 18419185

"What exactly are you inferring?" A closer look at hypothesis testing.

Michael C Newman1.   

Abstract

This critical review describes the confused application of significance tests in environmental toxicology and chemistry that often produces incorrect inferences and indefensible regulatory decisions. Following a brief review of statistical testing theory, nine recommendations are put forward. The first is that confidence intervals be used instead of hypothesis tests whenever possible. The remaining recommendations are relevant if hypothesis tests are used. They are as follows: Define and justify Type I and II error rates a priori; set and justify an effect size a priori; do not confuse p(E|H0) and p(H0|E); design tests permitting Positive Predictive Value estimation; publish negative results; estimate a priori, not post hoc, power; as warranted by study goals, favor null hypotheses that are not conventional nil hypotheses; and avoid definitive inferences from isolated tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18419185     DOI: 10.1897/07-373.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem        ISSN: 0730-7268            Impact factor:   3.742


  8 in total

1.  Survival data analyses in ecotoxicology: critical effect concentrations, methods and models. What should we use?

Authors:  Carole Forfait-Dubuc; Sandrine Charles; Elise Billoir; Marie Laure Delignette-Muller
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Assessing environmentally significant effects: a better strength-of-evidence than a single P value?

Authors:  Graham McBride; Russell G Cole; Ian Westbrooke; Ian Jowett
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Addendum to the article: Misuse of null hypothesis significance testing: Would estimation of positive and negative predictive values improve certainty of chemical risk assessment?

Authors:  Mirco Bundschuh; Michael C Newman; Jochen P Zubrod; Frank Seitz; Ricki R Rosenfeldt; Ralf Schulz
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Misuse of null hypothesis significance testing: would estimation of positive and negative predictive values improve certainty of chemical risk assessment?

Authors:  Mirco Bundschuh; Michael C Newman; Jochen P Zubrod; Frank Seitz; Ricki R Rosenfeldt; Ralf Schulz
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics.

Authors:  Graham Merrington; Youn-Joo An; Eric P M Grist; Seung-Woo Jeong; Chuthamat Rattikansukha; Susan Roe; Uwe Schneider; Suthipong Sthiannopkao; Glenn W Suter; Rick Van Dam; Patrick Van Sprang; Ju-Ying Wang; Michael St J Warne; Paul T Yillia; Xiao-Wei Zhang; Kenneth M Y Leung
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Effects of multiple daily genistein treatments on delayed alternation and a differential reinforcement of low rates of responding task in middle-aged rats.

Authors:  Steven L Neese; Suren B Bandara; Daniel R Doerge; William G Helferich; Donna L Korol; Susan L Schantz
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 3.763

7.  Chromosomal damage and EROD induction in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) along the Upper Mississippi River, Minnesota, USA.

Authors:  Emilie Bigorgne; Thomas W Custer; Paul M Dummer; Richard A Erickson; Natalie Karouna-Renier; Sandra Schultz; Christine M Custer; Wayne E Thogmartin; Cole W Matson
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 2.823

8.  Bottom-up effects of fungicides on tadpoles of the European common frog (Rana temporaria).

Authors:  Mirco Bundschuh; Jochen P Zubrod; Theo Wernicke; Marco Konschak; Leon Werner; Carsten A Brühl; Patrick Baudy; Ralf Schulz
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 2.912

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.