Literature DB >> 18582619

A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions.

Steven Goodman1.   

Abstract

The P value is a measure of statistical evidence that appears in virtually all medical research papers. Its interpretation is made extraordinarily difficult because it is not part of any formal system of statistical inference. As a result, the P value's inferential meaning is widely and often wildly misconstrued, a fact that has been pointed out in innumerable papers and books appearing since at least the 1940s. This commentary reviews a dozen of these common misinterpretations and explains why each is wrong. It also reviews the possible consequences of these improper understandings or representations of its meaning. Finally, it contrasts the P value with its Bayesian counterpart, the Bayes' factor, which has virtually all of the desirable properties of an evidential measure that the P value lacks, most notably interpretability. The most serious consequence of this array of P-value misconceptions is the false belief that the probability of a conclusion being in error can be calculated from the data in a single experiment without reference to external evidence or the plausibility of the underlying mechanism.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18582619     DOI: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Hematol        ISSN: 0037-1963            Impact factor:   3.851


  94 in total

1.  The ongoing tyranny of statistical significance testing in biomedical research.

Authors:  Andreas Stang; Charles Poole; Oliver Kuss
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Who is in this study, anyway? Guidelines for a useful Table 1.

Authors:  Eleanor Hayes-Larson; Katrina L Kezios; Stephen J Mooney; Gina Lovasi
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The researcher and the consultant: a dialogue on null hypothesis significance testing.

Authors:  Andreas Stang; Charles Poole
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  A Bayesian Analysis of Prenatal Maternal Factors Predicting Nonadherence to Infant HIV Medication in South Africa.

Authors:  R R Cook; K Peltzer; S M Weiss; V J Rodriguez; D L Jones
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2018-09

5.  Statistical considerations for preclinical studies.

Authors:  Inmaculada B Aban; Brandon George
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 5.330

6.  While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated.

Authors:  Eleonor Svantesson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Kurt P Spindler; Olufemi R Ayeni; Freddie H Fu; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Editorial: Threshold P Values in Orthopaedic Research-We Know the Problem. What is the Solution?

Authors:  Seth S Leopold; Raphaël Porcher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Interrogating selectivity in catalysis using molecular vibrations.

Authors:  Anat Milo; Elizabeth N Bess; Matthew S Sigman
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Insights, Pearls, and Guidance on Successfully Producing and Publishing Educational Research.

Authors:  Adam M Persky; Frank Romanelli
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 2.047

10.  Are the fallacies of the P value finally ended?

Authors:  Luca Bertolaccini; Andrea Viti; Alberto Terzi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.