The self-correcting nature of psychological and educational science has been seriously questioned. Recent special issues of "Perspectives on Psychological Science" and "Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts" have roundly condemned current organizational models of research and dissemination and have criticized the…

The introduction of digital literacy practices has created a tension in academia, with many academics challenging the view that critical thinking can be fostered on social networks. A quasi-experimental study was conducted on two sections of university-level writing classrooms to determine if there were meaningful differences in the quality of…

This paper reports on a quasi-experimental study comparing the effects of peer-editing to self-editing on improving students' revised drafts. The study involved two intact classes (experimental and control groups) of an English course. The experimental group practiced peer-editing while the control group engaged in self-editing. After receiving…

Reviews practices regarding tests of statistical significance and policies of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Decades of misuse of statistical significance testing are described, and revised editorial policies to improve practice are highlighted. Correct interpretation of statistical tests, interpretation of effect sizes, and…

Editorial practices revolving around tests of statistical significance are explored. The logic of statistical significance testing is presented in an accessible manner--many people who use statistical tests might not place such a premium on them if they knew what the tests really do, and what they do not do. The etiology of decades of misuse of…

Consulting editors (N=101) of the Journal of Counseling Psychology and the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology evaluated three versions, differing only with regard to level of statistical significance, of a research manuscript. Statistically nonsignificant and approach significance versions were more likely to be recommended for…

Argues that describing results as "significant" rather than "statistically significant" is confusing to the very people most apt to misinterpret this telegraphic wording. The importance of reporting the effect size and the value of both internal and external replicability analyses are stressed. (SLD)

Statistical significance tests (SSTs) have been the object of much controversy among social scientists. Proponents have hailed SSTs as an objective means for minimizing the likelihood that chance factors have contributed to research results. Critics have both questioned the logic underlying SSTs and bemoaned the widespread misapplication and…

Considers reviews of L. Daniels's article on editorial policy regarding statistical significance testing and concludes that the controversy is not over, although the gradual movement toward requiring additional information in the reporting of statistical results is viewed as a positive trend. (SLD)

Proposes modifications to the recent suggestions by B. Thompson (1996) for an American Educational Research Association editorial policy on statistical significance testing. Points out that, although it is useful to include effect sizes, they can be misinterpreted, and argues, as does Thompson, for greater attention to replication in educational…

Offers a framework for remedying some of the problems associated with the use of statistical significance tests through modifying journal editorial policies. Reviews examples from some journals that have established guidelines for reporting results of statistical significance tests. (SLD)

Journal editors respond to criticisms of reliance on statistical significance in research reporting. Joel R. Levin ("Journal of Educational Psychology") defends its use, whereas William D. Schafer ("Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development") emphasizes the distinction between statistically significant and important. William Asher…