A systematic review examining the assumptions of statistical methods used in scientific and technology research

Main Article Content

Jularat Chumnaul
Korakot Wichitsa-nguan Jetwanna
Krissada Santaweep

Abstract

     Statistical hypothesis testing requires the checking of assumptions in order to achieve valid and reliable research results. This study aimed to examine the reporting of statistical assumptions checking in scientific and technology research. A total of 126 research articles were searched in two scientific and technology journals published in 2021-2023, and data from research articles using inferential statistics was synthesized. Five commonly used statistical methods were considered. - t-test (independent samples t-test and paired samples t-test), one-way analysis of variance, chi-squared test, and Pearson correlation coefficient. The results showed that out of 126 research articles, 58 used inferential statistics (46.03% of all research articles and 59.18% of empirical research articles). The most used analytical statistic was one-way ANOVA, 34 articles (26.98% of all empirical research articles using inferential statistics), followed by independent samples t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient of 5 articles (3.97%), and chi-squared test of 3 articles (2.38%). Based on empirical research articles using inferential statistics to analyze data, only 4 articles (6.9%) reported the checking of statistical assumptions.

Article Details

Section
Original Articles

References

Choi, P.T. (2005). Statistics for the reader: what to ask before believing the results. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 52, R1–R5.

Ernst, A. F., and Albers, C. J. (2017). Regression assumptions in clinical psychology research practice a systematic review of common misconceptions. The Journal of Life and Environmental Sciences (PeerJ), 1, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3323

Hoekstra, R., Kiers, H. A. L., & Johnson A. (2012). Are assumptions of well-known statistical techniques checked, and why (not)? Frontiers in Psychology journal, 137(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00137

Hu, Y., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Statistical assumptions in L2 research: A systematic review. Second language research, 37(1), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319877433

Klubnual, P. (2018). The efficiency of parametric and non-parametric statistics on location testing with multiple population groups. RMUTSB Acad. J, 6(1), 84-100. https://li01.tcithaijo.org/index.php /rmutsb-sci/article/view/128277

Lindstromberg, S. (2016). Inferential statistics in language teaching research: A review and ways forward. Language Teaching Research, 20, 741–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881664 9979

Loewen, S., Lavolette, E., Spino, L. A., et al. (2014). Statistical literacy among applied linguists and second language acquisition researchers. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 360–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.128

Olsen, C.H. (2003). Review of the use of statistics in infection and immunity. Infection and Immunity, 71(12), 6689–6692.

Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000399

Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–66. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00640.x

Pruekpramool, C., Jaroentaku, N., & Siwachoat S. (2020). Efficiency of Pearson, Spearman and Kendall’s correlation coefficients when data is non-normal distributed. An online Journal of Education, 2, 1-16. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/OJED/article/view/245395

Riansut, W. (2018). A Comparison of the efficiency of the test statistics for testing homogeneity of variance. Journal of Science and Technology, 26(8), 1287-1301. https://li01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tstj/article/view/121065

Songthong, M. (2014). Robustness and power of the test of parametric and nonparametric statistics in testing of central difference between two populations for Likert-type data point. Journal of Science and Technology, 22(5), 605-619. https://li01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tstj/article/view/20618