scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal Article

Statistical tests, P-values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations

TLDR
This paper provided definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions, and provided an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of P values, confidence intervals, and power.
Abstract
Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant. A key problem is that there are no interpretations of these concepts that are at once simple, intuitive, correct, and foolproof. Instead, correct use and interpretation of these statistics requires an attention to detail which seems to tax the patience of working scientists. This high cognitive demand has led to an epidemic of shortcut definitions and interpretations that are simply wrong, sometimes disastrously so-and yet these misinterpretations dominate much of the scientific literature. In light of this problem, we provide definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions. Our goal is to provide a resource for instructors, researchers, and consumers of statistics whose knowledge of statistical theory and technique may be limited but who wish to avoid and spot misinterpretations. We emphasize how violation of often unstated analysis protocols (such as selecting analyses for presentation based on the P values they produce) can lead to small P values even if the declared test hypothesis is correct, and can lead to large P values even if that hypothesis is incorrect. We then provide an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of P values, confidence intervals, and power. We conclude with guidelines for improving statistical interpretation and reporting.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value

TL;DR: An important approach to evaluating evidence for causation in the face of unmeasured confounding is sensitivity analysis (or bias analysis), and it is proposed that observational studies start reporting the E-value, a new measure related to evidence for causality.
Journal ArticleDOI

A manifesto for reproducible science

TL;DR: This work argues for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducible and efficiency of scientific research.
Journal ArticleDOI

Control of Confounding and Reporting of Results in Causal Inference Studies. Guidance for Authors from Editors of Respiratory, Sleep, and Critical Care Journals

David J. Lederer, +51 more
TL;DR: Control of Confounding and Reporting of Results in Causal Inference Studies Guidance for Authors from Editors of Respiratory, Sleep, and Critical Care Journals is published.
References
More filters
Book

Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases

TL;DR: The authors described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: representativeness, availability of instances or scenarios, and adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
Journal ArticleDOI

The environment and disease: association or causation?

TL;DR: The criteria outlined in "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" help identify the causes of many diseases, including cancers of the reproductive system.
Book

Testing statistical hypotheses

TL;DR: The general decision problem, the Probability Background, Uniformly Most Powerful Tests, Unbiasedness, Theory and First Applications, and UNbiasedness: Applications to Normal Distributions, Invariance, Linear Hypotheses as discussed by the authors.
Related Papers (5)