提高非显著性结果在教育研究中的实用性:回顾与建议

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Peter A. Edelsbrunner , Christian M. Thurn
{"title":"提高非显著性结果在教育研究中的实用性:回顾与建议","authors":"Peter A. Edelsbrunner ,&nbsp;Christian M. Thurn","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When used appropriately, non-significant <em>p</em>-values have the potential to further our understanding of what does not work in education, and why. When misinterpreted, they can trigger misguided conclusions, for example about the absence of an effect of an educational intervention, or about a difference in the efficacy of different interventions. We examined the frequency of non-significant <em>p</em>-values in recent volumes of peer-reviewed educational research journals. We also examined how frequently researchers misinterpret non-significance to imply the absence of an effect, or a difference to another significant effect. Within a random sample of 50 peer-reviewed articles, we found that of 528 statistically tested hypotheses, 253 (48%) were non-significant. Of these, 142 (56%) were erroneously interpreted to indicate the absence of an effect, and 59 (23%) to indicate a difference to another significant effect. For 97 (38%) of non-significant results, such misinterpretations were linked to potentially misguided implications for educational theory, practice, or policy. We outline valid ways for dealing with non-significant <em>p</em>-values to improve their utility for education, discussing potential reasons for these misinterpretations and implications for research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 100590"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000830/pdfft?md5=063747efd81d8e3476507e46e203cf79&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X23000830-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the utility of non-significant results for educational research: A review and recommendations\",\"authors\":\"Peter A. Edelsbrunner ,&nbsp;Christian M. Thurn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>When used appropriately, non-significant <em>p</em>-values have the potential to further our understanding of what does not work in education, and why. When misinterpreted, they can trigger misguided conclusions, for example about the absence of an effect of an educational intervention, or about a difference in the efficacy of different interventions. We examined the frequency of non-significant <em>p</em>-values in recent volumes of peer-reviewed educational research journals. We also examined how frequently researchers misinterpret non-significance to imply the absence of an effect, or a difference to another significant effect. Within a random sample of 50 peer-reviewed articles, we found that of 528 statistically tested hypotheses, 253 (48%) were non-significant. Of these, 142 (56%) were erroneously interpreted to indicate the absence of an effect, and 59 (23%) to indicate a difference to another significant effect. For 97 (38%) of non-significant results, such misinterpretations were linked to potentially misguided implications for educational theory, practice, or policy. We outline valid ways for dealing with non-significant <em>p</em>-values to improve their utility for education, discussing potential reasons for these misinterpretations and implications for research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"volume\":\"42 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000830/pdfft?md5=063747efd81d8e3476507e46e203cf79&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X23000830-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000830\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000830","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果使用得当,非显著性 p 值有可能加深我们对教育中哪些措施不起作用及其原因的理解。如果误读,则可能引发错误的结论,例如认为教育干预措施没有效果,或认为不同干预措施的效果存在差异。我们研究了最近几期同行评审的教育研究期刊中出现非显著 p 值的频率。我们还考察了研究人员将非显著性误解为没有效果或与另一种显著效果存在差异的频率。在随机抽取的 50 篇同行评审文章中,我们发现在 528 个经过统计检验的假设中,有 253 个(48%)不显著。其中,142 项(56%)被错误地解释为不存在效应,59 项(23%)被错误地解释为与另一项显著效应存在差异。在 97 项(38%)不显著的结果中,这种错误解释可能会对教育理论、实践或政策产生误导。我们概述了处理非显著 p 值的有效方法,以提高其对教育的实用性,并讨论了这些误读的潜在原因和对研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving the utility of non-significant results for educational research: A review and recommendations

When used appropriately, non-significant p-values have the potential to further our understanding of what does not work in education, and why. When misinterpreted, they can trigger misguided conclusions, for example about the absence of an effect of an educational intervention, or about a difference in the efficacy of different interventions. We examined the frequency of non-significant p-values in recent volumes of peer-reviewed educational research journals. We also examined how frequently researchers misinterpret non-significance to imply the absence of an effect, or a difference to another significant effect. Within a random sample of 50 peer-reviewed articles, we found that of 528 statistically tested hypotheses, 253 (48%) were non-significant. Of these, 142 (56%) were erroneously interpreted to indicate the absence of an effect, and 59 (23%) to indicate a difference to another significant effect. For 97 (38%) of non-significant results, such misinterpretations were linked to potentially misguided implications for educational theory, practice, or policy. We outline valid ways for dealing with non-significant p-values to improve their utility for education, discussing potential reasons for these misinterpretations and implications for research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信