Marton Kovacs

Quantifying Support for the Null Hypothesis in Psychology: An Empirical Investigation

In the traditional statistical framework, nonsignificant results leave researchers in a state of suspended disbelief. In this study, we examined, empirically, the treatment and evidential impact of nonsignificant results. Our specific goals were twofold: to explore how psychologists interpret and communicate nonsignificant results and to assess how much these results constitute evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. First, we examined all nonsignificant findings mentioned in the abstracts of the 2015 volumes of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, and Psychological Science (N = 137). In 72% of these cases, nonsignificant results were misinterpreted, in that the authors inferred that the effect was absent. Second, a Bayes factor reanalysis revealed that fewer than 5% of the nonsignificant findings provided strong evidence (i.e., BF01 > 10) in favor of the null hypothesis over the alternative hypothesis. We recommend that researchers expand their statistical tool kit in order to correctly interpret nonsignificant results and to be able to evaluate the evidence for and against the null hypothesis.

The Psychometric Properties of the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory Using a Large-Scale Nonclinical Sample

The conceptualization of hypersexuality has begun to converge as a result of proposed diagnostic criteria. However, its measurement is still diverse. The Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (HBI) is one of the most appropriate scales used to assess hypersexuality, but further examination is needed to test its psychometric properties among different clinical and nonclinical groups, including samples outside of the United States. The aim of the present study was to investigate the reliability and the generalizability of HBI and to determine a cutoff score on a large, diverse, online, nonclinical sample (N = 18,034 participants; females = 6132; 34.0%; Mage = 33.6 years, SDage = 11.1). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability indices provided support for the structure of the HBI and demonstrated excellent reliability. Employing latent profile analysis (LPA), seven classes emerged, but they could not be reliably distinguished by objective sexuality-related characteristics. Moreover, it was not possible to determine an adequate cutoff score, most likely due to the low prevalence rate of hypersexuality in the population. HBI can be reliably used to measure the extent of hypersexual urges, fantasies, and behavior; however, objective indicators and a clinical interview are essential to claim that a given individual may exhibit features of problematic sexual behavior.