Comparing and Combining Data across Studies: Alternatives to Significance Testing

The need to compare and combine data quantitatively is becoming more frequent in studies of animal behaviour, ecology and conservation. Using a hypothetical data set, I point out some limitations of combining and comparing data using Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST). First, I discuss thre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oikos 1997-09, Vol.79 (3), p.616-618
Main Author: Fernandez-Duque, Eduardo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analytical estimating
Animal behavior
Animal ethology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Biological and medical sciences
Confidence interval
Conservation biology
Data analysis
Ecology
Forum
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
General aspects. Techniques
Meta analysis
Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)
Null hypothesis
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Sample size
Statistical significance
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The need to compare and combine data quantitatively is becoming more frequent in studies of animal behaviour, ecology and conservation. Using a hypothetical data set, I point out some limitations of combining and comparing data using Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST). First, I discuss three different aspects of data analysis that should regularly be considered: (1) effect size estimation, (2) confidence intervals estimation and, (3) power analysis. I then suggest meta-analysis as a sensible alternative method to account for some limitations of NHST. Meta-analysis is a quantitative technique for the combination and comparison of independent but similar studies. Meta-analysis allows comparison and summary of effect sizes across studies. When testing hypotheses framed in evolutionary theory, where small effects may have profound consequences, a knowledge of the magnitude of the association may be as important as knowing whether the data comply with the arbitrary, sacred and dogmatic significance criterion of p < 0.05.
ISSN:0030-1299
1600-0706
DOI:10.2307/3546906