Hipotez Testi, Güven Aralığı, Etki Büyüklüğü ve Merkezi Olmayan Olasılık Dağılımları Üzerine

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 1112 - 1123, 26.06.2011

Hüseyin Hüsnü Yıldırım Selda Yıldırım

Öz

Araştırmalar, yokluk hipotezi anlamlılık testinin (YHAT), çoğunlukla yanlış anlaşıldığını ve yanlış kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Bu yanlışlıklar üç ana başlıkta toplanabilir: 1) YHAT’ın, yokluk hipotezinin doğru olma ihtimali olarak ele alınması, 2) YHAT’ın, etki büyüklüğü hakkında bilgi verdiğinin sanılması ve 3) YHAT’ın sadece ortalamalar üzerinden bir hesaplama olduğunun gözden kaçması. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu yanlışlıklar üzerinde durularak güven aralığı, etki büyüklüğü ve merkezi olmayan olasılık dağılımlarının kullanılmasının, bu yanlışlıkların giderilmesine olan katkıları ele alınmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hipotez testi, güven aralığı, etki büyüklüğü, merkezi olmayan olasılık dağılımları

On Hypothesis Testing, Confidence Interval, Effect Size and Noncentral Probability Distributions

Öz

The research provides evidence that null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is frequently
misunderstood and, consequently, misused by researchers. Sources of these misunderstandings can be stated as: 1)
Interpreting NHST as a probability on accuracy of null hypothesis, 2) regarding NHST as an indicator of effect size,
and 3) overlooking the fact that NHST is just an analysis on means. This study investigates these misuses and
discusses confidence interval, effect size and noncentral probability distributions through their possible contributions
on resolving the misuses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hypothesis testing, confidence interval, effect size, noncentral probability distributions

Kaynakça

• Alhija, F. N. & Levy, A. (2009). Effect size reporting practices in published articles. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(2), 245 – 265.
• American Psychological Association. (1952). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 389 – 450.
• American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, DC.
• Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423 – 437.
• Berkson, J. (1938). Some difficulties of interpretation encountered in the application of the chi-square test. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 33(203), 526 – 536.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304 – 1312.
• Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997 – 1003.
• Cumming, G. & Finch, S. (2001). A primer on the understanding, use, and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(4), 532 – 574.
• Finch, S., Thomason, N. & Cumming, G. (2002). Past and future American Psychological Association guidelines for statistical practice. Theory and Psychology, 12(6), 825 – 853.
• Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. (12. Baskı, 1954). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
• Gliner, J. A., Leech, N. & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Problems with null hypothesis significance testing: what do the textbooks say? The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 83 – 92.
• Hedges, L. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? American Psychologist, 42(2), 443 – 455.
• Hunter, J. E. (1997). Needed: a ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8(1), 3 – 7.
• Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory the Logic of Science. New York: Cambridge University.
• Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746 – 759.
• Kirk, R. E. (2003). The importance of effect magnitude. In S. F. Davis (Ed.) Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology (pp. 83 – 105). Madlen, MA: Blackwell.
• Kuhn, T. (2006). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. (Çev: Nilüfer Kuyaş). İstanbul.
• Murphy, K. R. (1990). If the null hypothesis is impossible, why test it? American Psychologist, 45(3), 403 – 404.
• Neyman, J. & Pearson, E. S. (1928). On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference. Biometrika, 20A (1/2), 175 – 240.
• Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44(10), 1276 – 1284.
• Pollard, P. & Richardson, J. T. E. (1987). On the probability of making type 1 errors. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 159 – 163.
• Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 115 – 129.
• Shaver, J. P. (1993). What statistical testing is, and what it is not? Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 293 – 316.
• Shrout, P. E. (1997). Should significance tests be banned? Psychological Science, 8(1), 1 – 2.
• Smithson, M. (2000). Statistics with Confidence. London.
• Wilkinson, L. & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594 – 604.
• Yıldırım, C. (1996). Bilim Felsefesi (5. Baskı). İstanbul.