Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology
Background: The aim was to investigate inferences of statistically significant test results among persons with more or less statistical education and research experience. Methods: A total of 75 doctoral students and 64 statisticians/epidemiologist responded to a web questionnaire about inferences of...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Upsala Medical Society
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/8760/14781 |
| _version_ | 1797727574857613312 |
|---|---|
| author | Per Lytsy Mikael Hartman Ronnie Pingel |
| author_facet | Per Lytsy Mikael Hartman Ronnie Pingel |
| author_sort | Per Lytsy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The aim was to investigate inferences of statistically significant test results among persons with more or less statistical education and research experience. Methods: A total of 75 doctoral students and 64 statisticians/epidemiologist responded to a web questionnaire about inferences of statistically significant findings. Participants were asked about their education and research experience, and also whether a ‘statistically significant’ test result (P = 0.024, α-level 0.05) could be inferred as proof or probability statements about the truth or falsehood of the null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (H1). Results: Almost all participants reported having a university degree, and among statisticians/epidemiologist, most reported having a university degree in statistics and were working professionally with statistics. Overall, 9.4% of statisticians/epidemiologist and 24.0% of doctoral students responded that the statistically significant finding proved that H0 is not true, and 73.4% of statisticians/epidemiologists and 53.3% of doctoral students responded that the statistically significant finding indicated that H0 is improbable. Corresponding numbers about inferences about the alternative hypothesis (H1) were 12.0% and 6.2% about proving H1 being true and 62.7 and 62.5% for the conclusion that H1 is probable. Correct inferences to both questions, which is that a statistically significant finding cannot be inferred as either proof or a measure of a hypothesis’ probability, were given by 10.7% of doctoral students and 12.5% of statisticians/epidemiologists. Conclusions: Misinterpretation of P-values and statistically significant test results persists also among persons who have substantial statistical education and who work professionally with statistics. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T11:01:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9da4cb54c0954cbb9cb1fc22c0512dab |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0300-9734 2000-1967 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T11:01:39Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | Upsala Medical Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-9da4cb54c0954cbb9cb1fc22c0512dab2023-09-02T05:18:52ZengUpsala Medical SocietyUpsala Journal of Medical Sciences0300-97342000-19672022-08-011271810.48101/ujms.v127.87608760Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiologyPer Lytsy0Mikael Hartman1Ronnie Pingel2Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, SwedenIndependent ResearcherDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, SwedenBackground: The aim was to investigate inferences of statistically significant test results among persons with more or less statistical education and research experience. Methods: A total of 75 doctoral students and 64 statisticians/epidemiologist responded to a web questionnaire about inferences of statistically significant findings. Participants were asked about their education and research experience, and also whether a ‘statistically significant’ test result (P = 0.024, α-level 0.05) could be inferred as proof or probability statements about the truth or falsehood of the null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (H1). Results: Almost all participants reported having a university degree, and among statisticians/epidemiologist, most reported having a university degree in statistics and were working professionally with statistics. Overall, 9.4% of statisticians/epidemiologist and 24.0% of doctoral students responded that the statistically significant finding proved that H0 is not true, and 73.4% of statisticians/epidemiologists and 53.3% of doctoral students responded that the statistically significant finding indicated that H0 is improbable. Corresponding numbers about inferences about the alternative hypothesis (H1) were 12.0% and 6.2% about proving H1 being true and 62.7 and 62.5% for the conclusion that H1 is probable. Correct inferences to both questions, which is that a statistically significant finding cannot be inferred as either proof or a measure of a hypothesis’ probability, were given by 10.7% of doctoral students and 12.5% of statisticians/epidemiologists. Conclusions: Misinterpretation of P-values and statistically significant test results persists also among persons who have substantial statistical education and who work professionally with statistics.https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/8760/14781statistical inferencenull hypothesis significance testingstatisticsfrequentistp-value |
| spellingShingle | Per Lytsy Mikael Hartman Ronnie Pingel Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences statistical inference null hypothesis significance testing statistics frequentist p-value |
| title | Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| title_full | Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| title_fullStr | Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| title_short | Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| title_sort | misinterpretations of p values and statistical tests persists among researchers and professionals working with statistics and epidemiology |
| topic | statistical inference null hypothesis significance testing statistics frequentist p-value |
| url | https://ujms.net/index.php/ujms/article/view/8760/14781 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT perlytsy misinterpretationsofpvaluesandstatisticaltestspersistsamongresearchersandprofessionalsworkingwithstatisticsandepidemiology AT mikaelhartman misinterpretationsofpvaluesandstatisticaltestspersistsamongresearchersandprofessionalsworkingwithstatisticsandepidemiology AT ronniepingel misinterpretationsofpvaluesandstatisticaltestspersistsamongresearchersandprofessionalsworkingwithstatisticsandepidemiology |