So if you are trying to understand what the alternatives to p values and the null hypothesis thing and you believe in being the change, let’s change the conversation to the alternatives rather than to fruitless discussions about whether or not scientific and medical journals are moving away from p values.

Deming’s “

On Probability as the Basis for Action” is the best place to start your research.

What I do is explained in the resource that started this thread. But I will provide a brief explanation. As Deming proposed I use well developed study designs that are based on theoretical and empirical knowledge of the underlying physics and geometry of the system. Then I use probability to determine the actual confidence that the results and conclusions are sound.

One of the two probability tests I use is based on John Tukey’s paper: “A Quick, Compact, Two Sample Test to Duckworth’s Specifications” published in

*Technometrics*, Vol. 1, February 1959. Basically you get 3 independent replicates (a tad redundant I know but this part is essential) created for each of 2 levels. These levels can be any type of levels: current and new, high and low, supplier 1 and supplier 2, formulation 1 and formulation 2, equipment 1 and equipment 2…Combination math says that if the 3 replicates at level 1 is higher than all 3 replicates at level 2, then there is only a 5% chance of this occurring simply by chance. Increasing the number of replicates will reduce the alpha risk. And most importantly I GRAPH the results. This provides visual evidence of the size of the difference and the probability of the difference – or ‘equivalence’. These replicates can be individual things are subgroups of things.

The other test I use is also based on probability. It is used on a matched pair test and is explained in the resource.

I hope this helps you further your understanding of alternatives.