Literature DB >> 22853650

A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05.

E J Masicampo1, Daniel R Lalande.   

Abstract

In null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), p values are judged relative to an arbitrary threshold for significance (.05). The present work examined whether that standard influences the distribution of p values reported in the psychology literature. We examined a large subset of papers from three highly regarded journals. Distributions of p were found to be similar across the different journals. Moreover, p values were much more common immediately below .05 than would be expected based on the number of p values occurring in other ranges. This prevalence of p values just below the arbitrary criterion for significance was observed in all three journals. We discuss potential sources of this pattern, including publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22853650     DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.711335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  40 in total

1.  Introduction to the special issue on reliability and replication in cognitive and affective neuroscience research.

Authors:  Deanna M Barch; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Playing with Data--Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right.

Authors:  Klaas Sijtsma
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.500

Review 3.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  EPA's proposed transparency rule: Factors to consider, many; planets to live on, one.

Authors:  David B Allison; Harvey V Fineberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  A Bayesian approach to mitigation of publication bias.

Authors:  Maime Guan; Joachim Vandekerckhove
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-02

6.  Having your cake and eating it too: Flexibility and power with mass univariate statistics for ERP data.

Authors:  Eric C Fields; Gina R Kuperberg
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science.

Authors:  Sean Grant; Kathleen E Wendt; Bonnie J Leadbeater; Lauren H Supplee; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Frances Gardner; Catherine P Bradshaw
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2022-02-17

8.  On the persistence of low power in psychological science.

Authors:  Ivan Vankov; Jeffrey Bowers; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 2.143

9.  Reactions to threatening health messages.

Authors:  Gill A Ten Hoor; Gjalt-Jorn Y Peters; Janice Kalagi; Lianne de Groot; Karlijne Grootjans; Alexander Huschens; Constanze Köhninger; Lizan Kölgen; Isabelle Pelssers; Toby Schütt; Sophia Thomas; Robert A C Ruiter; Gerjo Kok
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 10.  Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Marcus R Munafò; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Brian A Nosek; Sean P David
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.