title: Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists.
abstract: Empirical studies in psychology typically employ null hypothesis significance testing to draw statistical inferences. We propose that likelihood ratios are a more straightforward alternative to this approach. Likelihood ratios provide a measure of the fit of two competing models; the statistic represents a direct comparison of the relative likelihood of the data, given the best fit of the two models. Likelihood ratios offer an intuitive, easily interpretable statistic that allows the researcher great flexibility in framing empirical arguments. In support of this position, we report the results of a survey of empirical articles in psychology, in which the common uses of statistics by empirical psychologists is examined. From the results of this survey, we show that likelihood ratios are able to serve all the important statistical needs of researchers in empirical psychology in a format that is more straightforward and easier to interpret than traditional inferential statistics.
authors.affiliation: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. scott.glover@rhul.ac.uk
authors.forename: Scott
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Glover
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Dixon
mesh_terms: D036262:Empirical Research; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011582:Psychological Theory
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jul;109(3):472-91
references.pmid: 12088241
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 Nov;11(6):610-6
references.pmid: 10601742
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2000 Jan;130(1):105-12
references.pmid: 10638447
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):113-26
references.pmid: 10696608
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2000 Jan;130(1):35-47
references.pmid: 10638439
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2000 Mar;54(1):15-32
references.pmid: 10721236
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2000 Mar;54(1):33-41
references.pmid: 10721237
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jan;3(1):80-4
references.pmid: 10607399
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Mar;7(1):113-20
references.pmid: 10780024
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 1988 Dec;78(12):1568-74
references.pmid: 3189634
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2003 Sep;57(3):203-20
references.pmid: 14596478
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2001 Dec;6(4):371-86
references.pmid: 11778678
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jan;3(1):85-90
references.pmid: 10607400
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1960 Sep;57:416-28
references.pmid: 13744252
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1999 Nov;11(6):617-30
references.pmid: 10601743
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1968 Sep;70(3):151-9
references.pmid: 5681305
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):264-78
references.pmid: 10696617
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Mar;7(1):133-41
references.pmid: 10780027