{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019543973941368076, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004343105320304018, 'mean_word_length': 6.038167938931298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Probabilistic Misconceptions Are Pervasive Among Communication Researchers

Across all areas of communication research, the most popular approach to generating insights about communication is the classical significance test (also called null hypothesis significance testing, NHST). The predominance of NHST in communication research is in spite of serious concerns about the ability of researchers to properly interpret its results. We draw on data from a survey of the ICA membership to assess the evidential basis of these concerns. The vast majority of communication researchers misinterpreted NHST (91%) and the most prominent alternative, confidence intervals (96%), while overestimating their competence. Academic seniority and statistical experience did not predict better interpretation outcomes. These findings indicate major problems regarding the generation of knowledge in the field of communication research.