| Abstract: | Researchers continue to recommend that applied behavior analysts use inferential statistics in making decisions about effects of independent variables on dependent variables. In many other approaches to behavioral science, inferential statistics are the primary means for deciding the importance of effects. Several possible uses of inferential statistics are considered. Rather than being an objective means for making decisions about effects, as is often claimed, inferential statistics are shown to be subjective. It is argued that the use of inferential statistics adds nothing to the complex and admittedly subjective nonstatistical methods that are often employed in applied behavior analysis. Attacks on inferential statistics that are being made, perhaps with increasing frequency, by those who are not behavior analysts, are discussed. These attackers are calling for banning the use of inferential statistics in research publications and commonly recommend that behavioral scientists should switch to using statistics aimed at interval estimation or the method of confidence intervals. Interval estimation is shown to be contrary to the fundamental assumption of behavior analysis that only individuals behave. It is recommended that authors who wish to publish the results of inferential statistics be asked to justify them as a means for helping us to identify any ways in which they may be useful. |
