To What Are We Inferring? The Widespread Misuse of Inferential Testing in the Most Cited Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) is widely used in criminology and criminal justice journals. Where either random selection of a sample or random assignment to treatment and control groups is absent, the meaning of inferential testing becomes unclear. Using a sample of articles published in 18 of the top ranked (h5-index) journals in criminology, criminal law, and policing, we examine (1) how often authors use NHST after violating the assumption of random selection/assignment, (2) whether authors focus more on statistical rather than substantive importance, and (3) whether this leads authors to ignore large statistically non-significant effects based on a flawed test. Our results suggest that it is commonplace to apply statistical procedures and interpret results with little attention to how data were generated and how results should be assessed. We recommend the use of exploratory research methods, better statistical training for students, and addressing publishing standards in our field.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
CrimRxiv
Published
2025-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.30053de7
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

To What Are We Inferring? The Widespread Misuse of Inferential Testing in the Most Cited Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

M. Hunter Martaindale, J. Pete Blair, Peter T. Tanksley, Emily Spivey
1 citations
CrimRxiv
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
4.20
article

To What Are We Inferring? The Widespread Misuse of Inferential Testing in the Most Cited Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

M. Hunter Martaindale, J. Pete Blair, Peter T. Tanksley, Emily Spivey
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) is widely used in criminology and criminal justice journals. Where either random selection of a sample or random assignment to treatment and control groups is absent, the meaning of inferential testing becomes unclear. Using a sample of articles published in 18 of the top ranked (h5-index) journals in criminology, criminal law, and policing, we examine (1) how often authors use NHST after violating the assumption of random selection/assignment, (2) whether authors focus more on statistical rather than substantive importance, and (3) whether this leads authors to ignore large statistically non-significant effects based on a flawed test. Our results suggest that it is commonplace to apply statistical procedures and interpret results with little attention to how data were generated and how results should be assessed. We recommend the use of exploratory research methods, better statistical training for students, and addressing publishing standards in our field.

CrimRxiv
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

To What Are We Inferring? The Widespread Misuse of Inferential Testing in the Most Cited Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals — M. Hunter Martaindale, J. Pete Blair, et al. · CrimRxiv (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS