Psychology Module: Discussion on Statistical Significance in Research

This discussion post critically analyzes the concept of statistical significance in psychology. The author explores its meaning, application in hypothesis testing, and the interpretation of p-values. The post highlights the importance of understanding statistical significance as a measure of reliability rather than the strength of a relationship, referencing the null hypothesis and criticisms by Cohen. The discussion examines the limitations of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) and its potential for Type II errors, while also acknowledging the ongoing use of NHST in various fields. The author references relevant literature and provides a clear definition of the topic. The discussion also highlights the importance of setting significance levels appropriately to minimize errors and maximize research quality.

Psychology
Psychology
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Date
1

Psychology
Critical analysis of the discussion
In the discussion, it is quite evident that statistical significance involves the high likelihood that a
certain relationship between several variables results. It is a manner of mathematically proving
that a particular statistic level is extensively reliable. This is practically utilized in statistical
hypothesis testing. This concept is utilized in finding out if a certain data set is statistically
significant. In this case, the test issues out a p-value that showcase the probability indicating that
p-value of less or equal to 5% is proved to be statistically significant (Giunti, & Laveder, 2011).
According to the discussion it indicates how particular research has high self-esteem regarding
the outcomes. This discussion has offered a clear definition of the topic and also used a
quantitative methodology to emphasize the main points. It shows that the writer carried out
extensive research and dealt with facts regarding the discussion.
In the discussion, we can critically acknowledge that statistical significance is utilized well in
either accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference
between variables or data set hence considering one as an outlier. A measured variable is thus
seen to be significant of the probability (P-Value) of the phenomenon is 5%. Conversely when
the test outcome is higher that p-value, null hypotheses is agreed, if it is lower, then the null
hypothesis is tremendously rejected. According to Giunti, & Laveder, M. (2011) there exist
criticism from various literature over the past regarding NHST. It is deemed as highly inadequate
and unworthy in utilizing it since it dwells in ultimately unrealistic situations. The discussion
indicates that there is no much sense using it since the hypothesis brings wrong probability hence
it will always become an outlier. Evidently, it has resulted to type II errors on variables. As seen
the discussion has dealt on main points without bias.
2

Psychology
Albeit altogether condemned, Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) remains the factual
strategy for decision used to give proof to an impact, in organic, biomedical and sociologies. The
significance level is considered to be minimal in medicine filed due to its nature of having no
clinical benefit. Evidently, researchers are advised to set up at 0.01 in order to lower levels of
errors and maximize on quality of research (Page, 2014).
The discussion indicates that carrying out a study on the data will lead to a more reliable
outcome in terms of statistical significance since there will be decreased sampling errors during
the research.
Albeit the ideas driving the strategy, recognizing trial of hugeness (Fisher) and trial of
acknowledgment (Newman-Pearson) and point to basic translation blunders with respect to the
p-esteem. I at that point present the related ideas of certainty interims and again point to normal
understanding mistakes (Page, 2014). The objective is to elucidate ideas to maintain a strategic
distance from translation blunders and propose basic detailing rehearses.
The strategy created by (Fisher, 1934; Fisher, 1955; Fisher, 1959) enables us to process the
likelihood of watching an outcome in any event as outrageous as a test measurement (for
example t esteem), expecting the invalid speculation of no impact is valid. This likelihood or p-
esteem reflects (1) the contingent likelihood of accomplishing the watched result or bigger: p
(Obs≥t|H0), and (2) is consequently a combined likelihood as opposed to a point gauge. It is
equivalent to the zone under the invalid likelihood appropriation bend from the watched test
measurement to the tail of the invalid dissemination.
3

Psychology
In Neyman-Pearson's strategy, the invalid and elective theories are indicated alongside from the
earlier dimension of acknowledgment. This technique has largely been used in various fields'
mathematics and several industries. However, it has not been applied in the psychology field.
The discussion is thus based on clarity and reliability of information (Page, 2014). The
discussion has provided a platform for future research and critical discussion on the topic. The
writer has extensive knowledge of the main topic through the providence of supporting material,
literature and evidence-based. Also, the language used in the discussion is comprehensive and
simple to understand.
4

Psychology
References
Giunti, C., & Laveder, M. (2011). Statistical significance of the gallium anomaly. Physical
Review C, 83(6), 065504.
Page, P. (2014). Beyond statistical significance: clinical interpretation of rehabilitation research
literature. International journal of sports physical therapy, 9(5), 726.
5