A taxonomy of model assumptions on which P is based and implications for added benefit in the sciences

References

• American Statistical Association. (1997). Symposium on statistical inference. Bethesda, Maryland (October 11-13).
   Google Scholar
• Berk, R. A., & Freedman, D. A. (2003). Statistical assumptions as empirical commitments. In T. G. Blomberg & S. Cohen (Eds.), Law, punishment, and social control: Essays in honor of Sheldon Messinger (2nd ed., pp. 235–254). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, M. T., & Brand, A. (2016). Significance testing needs a taxonomy: Or how the Fisher, Neyman-Pearson controversy resulted in the inferential tail wagging the measurement dog. Psychological Reports, 119(2), 487–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs, W. (2016). Uncertainty: The soul of modeling, probability and statistics. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs, W. (2019). Everything wrong with p-values under one roof. In V. Kreinovich, N. N. Thach, N. D. Trung, & D. Van Thanh (Eds.), Beyond traditional probabilistic methods in econometrics (pp. 22–44). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <. 05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1997). The Earth is round (p < .05). In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 21–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory ( P.P. Wiener, Trans). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ( Original work published 1906).
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M. (1980). Theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979 (pp. 65–116). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).
   Google Scholar
• Greenland, S. (2017). Invited commentary: The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 639–645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, J. W. (2017). Comment on Locascio’s results blind manuscript evaluation proposal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 254–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, R. (2016). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hyman, M. (2017). Can ‘results blind manuscript evaluation’ assuage ‘publication bias’? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 247–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. (2017). Comment on Locascio, results blind science publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 256–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Locascio, J. (2017a). Results blind publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locascio, J. (2017b). Rejoinder to responses to “results blind publishing”. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 258–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, M. J. (2017). Commentary on Locascio 2017. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 252–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McShane, B. B, Gal, D, Gelman, A, Robert, C, & Tacket, J. L. (2019). Abandon statistical significance. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 235–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, K. J., Galacher, J. E. J., & Hatch, E. E. (2013). Why representativeness should be avoided. International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(4), 1012–1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speelman, C. P., & McGann, M. (2016). Editorial: Challenges to mean-based analysis in psychology: The contrast between individual people and general science. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D. (2003). Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes’s theorem. Psychological Review, 110(3), 526–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D. (2017a). Why it is problematic to calculate probabilities of findings given range null hypotheses. Open Journal of Statistics, 7, 483–499.
   Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D. (2017b). Implications of an initial empirical victory for the truth of the theory and additional empirical victories. Philosophical Psychology, 30(4), 411–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D. (2018). Confidence intervals, precision and confounding. New Ideas in Psychology, 50, 48–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D., Wang, T., & Wang, C. (2018). Means and standard deviations, or locations and scales? That is the question! New Ideas in Psychology, 50, 34–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trafimow, D, Wang, T, & Wang, C. (2019). From a sampling precision perspective, skewness is a friend and not an enemy! Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 129–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentine, J. C., Aloe, A. M., & Lau, T. S. (2015). Life after NHST: How to describe your data without “p-ing” everywhere. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 260–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 129–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2016). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar