Statistical testing of null hypotheses is a daily routine for many researchers. Researchers often do not sufficiently realize that with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) they do not draw conclusions about their data directly, but indirectly. As a result, conclusions from scientific research are often incorrect. Methodologists have been pointing this out for years. Nevertheless, the practice of NHST only seems to be increasing, while there are a number of better alternatives available. We wonder which perceptions or beliefs are at the base if this.

Our study consists of two parts. In the first part we aim to gain insight into the views of stakeholders on the use of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. The aim is to gain knowledge about the perceptions of stakeholders of null hypothesis significance testing and to map their motives for using this method. With the second part of the study, we aim to develop strategies that will overcome the default use of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and that will stimulate use of better alternatives.

 

In the first part of the study, we held interviews with representatives of several stakeholder groups from within the science system: researchers, editors, lecturers of statistics classes and funding agencies. The results of these interviews served as input for focus groups with the same groups of stakeholders. In the focus groups, alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing were further explored and concretized.

 

In the second part of the research, a search conferences was held in which researchers discussed strategies to change current ubiquitous use of NHST in science and higher education.

 

Spring 2017: Application approved

August-November 2017: Rewrite protocol and registration

November 2017- June 2018: Interviews

September-December 2018: Focus groups

March 2019: Search conference

April-December: data analysis and reporting