The test of psychology does not provide the information concerning psychology phenomena characteristically attributed to it: and a great deal of mischief has been associated with its use. The basic logic associated with the test of significance is reviewed. The null hypothesis is characteristically false under any circumstances. Publication practices foster the reporting of small effects in populations. Psychologists have "adjusted" by misinterpretation, taking the p value as a "measure"assuming that the test of significance provides automaticy of inference and confusing the aggregate with the general. The difficulties are illuminated by bringing to bear the contributions from the decision-theory school on the Fisher approach. The Bayesian approach is suggested.
Abstract