新世纪20年国内假设检验及其关联问题的方法学研究

新世纪20年来国内假设检验方法学研究内容可分为如下几类: 零假设显著性检验的不足、p值的使用问题、心理学研究的可重复性问题、效应量、检验力、等效性检验、其他与假设检验关联的研究。零假设显著性检验已经发展成一套组合流程: 为了保证检验力和节省成本, 实验研究需要做先验检验力分析预估样本容量, 但问卷超过160人在传统统计中就没有必要这样做。当拒绝零假设时, 应当结合效应量做出结论。当不拒绝零假设时, 需要报告后验检验力; 如果效应量中或大而检验力不够高, 则可增加被试再行分析, 但这一过程应主动披露, 报告最后的实际p值并对可能犯的第一类错误率做出评估。     

中介变量、调节变量与协变量——概念、统计检验及其比较

本文在已有研究文献的基础上,集中探讨了中介变量、调节变量和协变量的概念,以及中介效应、调节效应和协变量效应的统计分析方法。随后分别对中介效应和间接效应,调节效应和交互效应进行了辨析,并从测量水平和检验方法等方面对三种统计概念做了比较。     

新世纪20年国内心理统计方法研究回顾

新世纪头20年, 国内心理学11本专业期刊一共发表了213篇统计方法研究论文。研究范围主要包括以下10类(按论文篇数排序)：结构方程模型、测验信度、中介效应、效应量与检验力、纵向研究、调节效应、探索性因子分析、潜在类别模型、共同方法偏差和多层线性模型。对各类做了简单的回顾与梳理。结果发现, 国内心理统计方法研究的广度和深度都不断增加, 研究热点在相互融合中共同发展; 但综述类论文比例较大, 原创性研究论文比例有待提高, 研究力量也有待加强。     

结构方程模型统计检验力分析：原理与方法

结构方程模型是心理学、管理学、社会学等学科中重要的统计工具之一。然而, 大量使用结构方程模型的研究忽视了对该方法的统计检验力进行必要的分析和报告, 在一定程度上降低了这些研究的结果的证明效力。结构方程模型的统计检验力分析方法主要有Satorra-Saris法、MacCallum法与Monte Carlo法三类。其中Satorra-Saris法适用于备择模型清晰、检验对象相对简单、检验方法基于χ²分布的情形; MacCallum法适用于基于χ²分布的模型拟合检验且备择模型不明的情形; Monte Carlo法适用于检验对象相对复杂、采用模拟或重抽样方法进行检验的情形。在实际应用中, 研究者应当首先判断检验的目的、方法以及是否有明确的备择模型, 并根据这些信息选择具体的分析方法。     

多水平随机中介效应估计及其比较

本文在综述各类多水平中介模型的基础上, 聚焦于自变量、中介变量、因变量都来自多水平结构中较低水平的多水平随机中介效应模型, 通过蒙特卡洛模拟研究比较该模型与简化的多水平固定中介效应模型、传统中介效应模型的差别, 并考察了目前用于多水平随机中介效应的三种参数估计方法：限制性极大似然、极大似然、最小方差二次无偏估计在不同情况下对随机中介效应估计的优劣。研究结果显示：当数据符合多水平随机中介效应模型时, 使用简化模型将错误估计中介效应及其标准误, 得到不正确的统计检验结果; 使用多水平随机中介效应模型能够实现对中介效应的正确估计和检验, 其中限制性极大似然或极大似然估计方法优于最小方差二次无偏估计方法。     

国内中介效应的方法学研究

中介效应可以分析自变量对因变量的影响过程和作用机制, 已成为分析多个变量之间关系的一种重要统计方法。最近20年, 中介效应成了研究方法的一个热点。从中介效应的检验方法、效应量、类别变量的中介效应检验、纵向数据的中介效应检验和模型拓展(包括多重中介、多层中介、有调节的中介和有中介的调节模型)五个方面系统总结了国内中介效应的方法学研究的发展历程。最后对中介效应的国外方法学研究进展和中介效应的未来研究方向做了讨论和拓展。     

《心理统计学》教学内容的新探索

本文在对当前国内外主要心理统计学教材进行比较的基础上,指出与上个世纪八十年代的心理统计学教材内容相比较,在内容上的新探索主要体现在（1）由“假设检验”的内容中发展出“统计检验力”和“效果大小”的统计指标和估计方法;（2）引进一般线性模型来统合方差分析和回归分析这两种统计方法;（3）适度增加一些“多元统计分析”的内容等三个方面.本文对前两个方面的新内容作了简要评述,并对教材内容的编排方面提出了新的思路.     

共情与亲社会行为关系的元分析

本研究采用元分析的方法探讨共情与亲社会行为之间的关系以及影响二者关系的调节因素。通过文献检索, 共获得76项研究和77个独立效应量, 包含了20352名被试。异质性检验表明, 选择随机效应模型比较合适; 漏斗图和Egger’s检验结果显示, 本元分析不存在发表偏差; 主效应检验发现, 共情与亲社会行为呈显著正相关(r = 0.38, p < 0.001); 调节效应检验表明, 二者关系受被试年龄和共情测量工具类型的调节, 但不受文化背景的影响。     

有关行为研究方法学的六点思考

本文提供作者的研究经验和反思, 就行为研究方法学的多样性和互补性, 统计方法与实验想法的权衡, 信-效度的关系, 被试与测试者期望效应对数据的污染, 避免方法学和统计检验的规定成为束缚研究的新八股, 以及理论与实证的互动进行了探讨。     

认知诊断测验中基于信息矩阵的多群组DIF检验

基于改进的Wald统计量,将适用于两群组的DIF检测方法拓展至多群组的项目功能差异（DIF）检验;改进的Wald统计量将分别通过计算观察信息矩阵（Obs）和经验交叉相乘信息矩阵（XPD）而得到。模拟研究探讨了此二者与传统计算方法在多个群组下的DIF检验情况,结果表明：（1）Obs和XPD的一类错误率明显低于传统方法,DINA模型估计下Obs和XPD的一类错误率接近理论水平;（2）样本量和DIF量较大时,Obs和XPD具有与传统Wald统计量大体相同的统计检验力。     

A Critical Assessment of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Quantitative Communication Research

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the most widely accepted and frequently used approach to statistical inference in quantitative communication research. NHST, however, is highly controversial, and several serious problems with the approach have been identified. This paper reviews NHST and the controversy surrounding it. Commonly recognized problems include a sensitivity to sample size, the null is usually literally false, unacceptable Type II error rates, and misunderstanding and abuse. Problems associated with the conditional nature of NHST and the failure to distinguish statistical hypotheses from substantive hypotheses are emphasized. Recommended solutions and alternatives are addressed in a companion article.     

The proof of the pudding: an illustration of the relative strengths of null hypothesis, meta-analysis, and Bayesian analysis

Some methodologists have recently suggested that scientific psychology's over-reliance on null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) impedes the progress of the discipline. In response, a number of defenders have maintained that NHST continues to play a vital role in psychological research. Both sides of the argument to date have been presented abstractly. The authors take a different approach to this issue by illustrating the use of NHST along with 2 possible alternatives (meta-analysis as a primary data analysis strategy and Bayesian approaches) in a series of 3 studies. Comparing and contrasting the approaches on actual data brings out the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The exercise demonstrates that the approaches are not mutually exclusive but instead can be used to complement one another.     

Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is arguably the most widely used approach to hypothesis evaluation among behavioral and social scientists. It is also very controversial. A major concern expressed by critics is that such testing is misunderstood by many of those who use it. Several other objections to its use have also been raised. In this article the author reviews and comments on the claimed misunderstandings as well as on other criticisms of the approach, and he notes arguments that have been advanced in support of NHST. Alternatives and supplements to NHST are considered, as are several related recommendations regarding the interpretation of experimental data. The concluding opinion is that NHST is easily misunderstood and misused but that when applied with good judgment it can be an effective aid to the interpretation of experimental data.     

Bayesian statistical inference in psychology: comment on Trafimow (2003)

D. Trafimow (2003) presented an analysis of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) using Bayes's theorem. Among other points, he concluded that NHST is logically invalid, but that logically valid Bayesian analyses are often not possible. The latter conclusion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Bayesian inference. This view needs correction, because Bayesian methods have an important role to play in many psychological problems where standard techniques are inadequate. This comment, with the help of a simple example, explains the usefulness of Bayesian inference for psychology.     

On confidence intervals for within-subjects designs

Confidence intervals (CIs) for means are frequently advocated as alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), for which a common theme in the debate is that conclusions from CIs and NHST should be mutually consistent. The authors examined a class of CIs for which the conclusions are said to be inconsistent with NHST in within-subjects designs and a class for which the conclusions are said to be consistent. The difference between them is a difference in models. In particular, the main issue is that the class for which the conclusions are said to be consistent derives from fixed-effects models with subjects fixed, not mixed models with subjects random. Offered is mixed model methodology that has been popularized in the statistical literature and statistical software procedures. Generalizations to different classes of within-subjects designs are explored, and comments on the future direction of the debate on NHST are offered.     

Fisher与Neyman–Pearson的分歧与心理统计中的假设检验争议

假设检验思想的提出者Fisher与Neyman–Pearson在统计模型的方法论基础、两类错误的性质、显著性水平的理解、以及假设检验的功能等方面存在诸多分歧, 使得心理统计中最常用的原假设显著性检验模式呈现出隐含的各种矛盾, 从而引发了应用上的争议。心理统计不仅需要检讨现有检验模型的模糊之处和提出其他补充性的统计推论方式,更应注重反思心理统计的教育传统, 以建立更加开放和多元的统计应用视野, 使心理统计为更好地心理学研究服务。     

SIGNIFICANCE TESTS HAVE THEIR PLACE

Abstract— Null-hypothesis significance tests (NHST), properly used, tell us whether we have sufficient evidence to be confident of the sign of the population effect—but only if we abandon two-valued logic in favor of Kaiser's (1960) three-alternative hypothesis tests Confidence intervals provide a useful addition to NHSTs, and can be used to provide the same sign-determination function as NHST However, when so used, confidence intervals are subject to exactly the same Type I, II, and III error rates as NHST In addition, NHSTs provide two pieces of information about our data—maximum probability of a Type III error and probability of a successful exact replication—that confidence intervals do not The proposed alternative to NHST is just as susceptible to misinterpretation as is NHST The problem of bias due to censoring of data collection or publication can be handled by providing archives for all methodologically sound data sets, but reserving interpretations and conclusions for statistically significant results.     

贝叶斯因子及其在JASP中的实现

统计推断在科学研究中起到关键作用, 然而当前科研中最常用的经典统计方法——零假设检验(Null hypothesis significance test, NHST)却因难以理解而被部分研究者误用或滥用。有研究者提出使用贝叶斯因子(Bayes factor)作为一种替代和(或)补充的统计方法。贝叶斯因子是贝叶斯统计中用来进行模型比较和假设检验的重要方法, 其可以解读为对零假设H₀或者备择假设H₁的支持程度。其与NHST相比有如下优势：同时考虑H₀和H₁并可以用来支持H₀、不“严重”地倾向于反对H₀、可以监控证据强度的变化以及不受抽样计划的影响。目前, 贝叶斯因子能够很便捷地通过开放的统计软件JASP实现, 本文以贝叶斯t检验进行示范。贝叶斯因子的使用对心理学研究者来说具有重要的意义, 但使用时需要注意先验分布选择的合理性以及保持数据分析过程的透明与公开。     

Null hypothesis significance testing. On the survival of a flawed method

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the researcher's workhorse for making inductive inferences. This method has often been challenged, has occasionally been defended, and has persistently been used through most of the history of scientific psychology. This article reviews both the criticisms of NHST and the arguments brought to its defense. The review shows that the criticisms address the logical validity of inferences arising from NHST, whereas the defenses stress the pragmatic value of these inferences. The author suggests that both critics and apologists implicitly rely on Bayesian assumptions. When these assumptions are made explicit, the primary challenge for NHST--and any system of induction--can be confronted. The challenge is to find a solution to the question of replicability.