Information theory and hypothesis testing: a call for pluralism

Information theory and hypothesis testing: a call for pluralism Summary 1 A major paradigm shift is occurring in the approach of ecologists to statistical analysis. The use of the traditional approach of null‐hypothesis testing has been questioned and an alternative, model selection by information–theoretic methods, has been strongly promoted and is now widely used. For certain types of analysis, information–theoretic approaches offer powerful and compelling advantages over null‐hypothesis testing. 2 The benefits of information–theoretic methods are often framed as criticisms of null‐hypothesis testing. We argue that many of these criticisms are neither irremediable nor always fair. Many are criticisms of the paradigm's application, rather than of its formulation. Information–theoretic methods are equally vulnerable to many such misuses. Care must be taken in the use of either approach but users of null‐hypothesis tests, in particular, must greatly improve standards of reporting and interpretation. 3 Recent critiques have suggested that the distinction between experimental and observational studies defines the limits of the utility of null‐hypothesis testing (with the paradigm being applicable to the former but not the latter). However, we believe that there are many situations in which observational data are collected that lend themselves to analysis under the null‐hypothesis testing paradigm. We suggest that the applicability of the two analytical paradigms is more accurately defined by studies that assess univariate causality (when null‐hypothesis testing is adequate) and those that assess multivariate patterns of causality (when information–theoretic methods are more suitable). 4 Synthesis and applications. Many ecologists are confused about the circumstances under which different inferential paradigms might apply. We address some of the major criticisms of the null‐hypothesis testing paradigm, assess those criticisms in relation to the information–theoretic paradigm, propose methods for improving the use of null‐hypothesis testing, and discuss situations in which the use of null‐hypothesis testing would be appropriate. We urge instructors and practitioners of statistical methods to heighten awareness of the limitations of null‐hypothesis testing and to use information–theoretic methods whenever prior evidence suggests that multiple research hypotheses are plausible. We contend, however, that by marginalizing the use of null‐hypothesis testing, ecologists risk rejecting a powerful, informative and well‐established analytical tool. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Ecology Wiley

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/information-theory-and-hypothesis-testing-a-call-for-pluralism-0ykF0KvMcB
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0021-8901
eISSN
1365-2664
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01002.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Summary 1 A major paradigm shift is occurring in the approach of ecologists to statistical analysis. The use of the traditional approach of null‐hypothesis testing has been questioned and an alternative, model selection by information–theoretic methods, has been strongly promoted and is now widely used. For certain types of analysis, information–theoretic approaches offer powerful and compelling advantages over null‐hypothesis testing. 2 The benefits of information–theoretic methods are often framed as criticisms of null‐hypothesis testing. We argue that many of these criticisms are neither irremediable nor always fair. Many are criticisms of the paradigm's application, rather than of its formulation. Information–theoretic methods are equally vulnerable to many such misuses. Care must be taken in the use of either approach but users of null‐hypothesis tests, in particular, must greatly improve standards of reporting and interpretation. 3 Recent critiques have suggested that the distinction between experimental and observational studies defines the limits of the utility of null‐hypothesis testing (with the paradigm being applicable to the former but not the latter). However, we believe that there are many situations in which observational data are collected that lend themselves to analysis under the null‐hypothesis testing paradigm. We suggest that the applicability of the two analytical paradigms is more accurately defined by studies that assess univariate causality (when null‐hypothesis testing is adequate) and those that assess multivariate patterns of causality (when information–theoretic methods are more suitable). 4 Synthesis and applications. Many ecologists are confused about the circumstances under which different inferential paradigms might apply. We address some of the major criticisms of the null‐hypothesis testing paradigm, assess those criticisms in relation to the information–theoretic paradigm, propose methods for improving the use of null‐hypothesis testing, and discuss situations in which the use of null‐hypothesis testing would be appropriate. We urge instructors and practitioners of statistical methods to heighten awareness of the limitations of null‐hypothesis testing and to use information–theoretic methods whenever prior evidence suggests that multiple research hypotheses are plausible. We contend, however, that by marginalizing the use of null‐hypothesis testing, ecologists risk rejecting a powerful, informative and well‐established analytical tool.

Journal

Journal of Applied EcologyWiley

Published: Feb 1, 2005

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off