You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Fisher, Neyman-Pearson or NHST? A tutorial for teaching data testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00223 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jose D. Perezgonzalez |
| Abstract |
Despite frequent calls for the overhaul of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), this controversial procedure remains ubiquitous in behavioral, social and biomedical teaching and research. Little change seems possible once the procedure becomes well ingrained in the minds and current practice of researchers; thus, the optimal opportunity for such change is at the time the procedure is taught, be this at undergraduate or at postgraduate levels. This paper presents a tutorial for the teaching of data testing procedures, often referred to as hypothesis testing theories. The first procedure introduced is Fisher's approach to data testing-tests of significance; the second is Neyman-Pearson's approach-tests of acceptance; the final procedure is the incongruent combination of the previous two theories into the current approach-NSHT. For those researchers sticking with the latter, two compromise solutions on how to improve NHST conclude the tutorial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 19 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 11% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 4% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| India | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 51 | 62% |
| Scientists | 23 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 178 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 2% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 2% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 131 | 74% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Unknown | 135 | 76% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 02 March 2024.
All research outputs
#709,964
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,477
of 34,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,529
of 272,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#36
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 272,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 437 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.