0

So I ran three paired samples t-tests to see if people did a certain action more after hearing a target stimulus. my prediction is that they would do the action more. All tests were one-tailed as i was only looking at one direction: did it increase after x. n = 29 for each test.

the p values for tests were, First test:.061, one-tailed, Second test:p = .098, one-tailed and third test: p = .13, one-tailed. But in every result the mean was higher in the group I predicted would be higher after the stimulus.

So, when I report this what can I say? Should I say that while not 'significant' they were in the 'expected direction' and that repeating the test with a larger sample is needed? In other words that there is an interesting trend and deserves more investigation?

Thanks so much!

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

midori
  • 11
  • 2
  • It's worth noting that the three tests reported a strength of evidence in the data against their respective nulls that might reasonably be described as 'weak', 'very weak', and 'trivial'. Don't lose sight of the fact that a p-value of 0.05 reflects weak evidence against the null according to the statistical model of the test. – Michael Lew May 15 '21 at 21:27
  • If the investigation is of interest then you need to perform a fresh experiment... – Michael Lew May 15 '21 at 21:27
  • @MichaelLew So when I report this, should I saw as mean was always higher in the group that saw the stimulus this is interesting and that future research is warranted even though results are weak/trivial? – midori May 16 '21 at 00:14
  • You can describe the results (including effect size and some scale for important size), but also explain in detail the experiment and sampling procedures (e.g. did you use a random number generator for randomisation of treatments/subjects?). Do not claim 'significance' or 'near significance' as those terms have no reliable meaning. Perhaps read this, paying attention to figures 1–3 and 8: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/164_2019_286 – Michael Lew May 16 '21 at 23:56

0 Answers0