| Title |
Reform of statistical inference in psychology: The case ofMemory & Cognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, May 2004
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03195577 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sue Finch, Geoff Cumming, Jennifer Williams, Lee Palmer, Elvira Griffith, Chris Alders, James Anderson, Olivia Goodman |
| Abstract |
Geoffrey Loftus, Editor of Memory & Cognition from 1994 to 1997, strongly encouraged presentation of figures with error bars and avoidance of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). The authors examined 696 Memory & Cognition articles published before, during, and after the Loftus editorship. Use of figures with bars increased to 47% under Loftus's editorship and then declined. Bars were rarely used for interpretation, and NHST remained almost universal. Analysis of 309 articles in other psychology journals confirmed that Loftus's influence was most evident in the articles he accepted for publication, but was otherwise limited. An e-mail survey of authors of papers accepted by Loftus revealed some support for his policy, but allegiance to traditional practices as well. Reform of psychologists' statistical practices would require more than editorial encouragement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 36 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 59% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,980
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,214
of 62,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 62,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.