Even statisticians are not immune to misinterpretations of Null Hypothesis Significance Tests

Abstract

W e investigated the way experienced users interpret Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) outcomes. An empirical study was designed to compare the reactions of two populations of NHST users, psychological researchers and professional applied statisticians, when faced with contradictory situations. The subjects were presented with the results of an experiment designed to test the efficacy of a drug by comparing two groups (treatment/placebo). Four situations were constructed by combining the outcome of the t test (significant vs. nonsignificant) and the observed difference between the two means D (large vs. small). Two of these situations appeared as conflicting (t significant/D small and t nonsignificant/D large). Three fundamental aspects of statistical inference were investigated by means of open questions: drawing inductive conclusions about the magnitude of the true difference from the data in hand, making predictions for future data, and making decisions about stopping the experiment. The subjects were 25 statisticians from pharmaceutical companies in France, subjects well versed in statistics, and 20 psychological researchers from various laboratories in France, all with experience in processing and analyzing experimental data. On the whole, statisticians and psychologists reacted in a similar way and were very impressed by significant results. It must be outlined that professional applied statisticians were not immune to misinterpretations, especially in the case of nonsignificance. However, the interpretations that accustomed users attach to the outcome of NHST can vary from one individual to another, and it is hard to conceive that there could be a consensus in the face of seemingly conflicting situations. In fact, beyond the superficial report of "erroneous" interpretations, it can be seen in the misuses of NHST intuitive judgmental "adjustments" that try to overcome its inherent shortcomings. These findings encourage the many recent attempts to improve the habitual ways of analyzing and reporting experimental data. N ous avons étudié la manière dont des utilisateurs expérimentés interprètent les résultats des Tests de Signification de l'Hypothèse Nulle. Une étude empirique a été menée pour comparer les réactions de deux populations d'utilisateurs, des chercheurs en psychologie et des statisticiens professionnels, face à des situations conflictuelles. On présentait aux sujets les résultats d'une expérience planifiée pour tester l'efficacité d'un médicament en comparant deux groupes (traitement/ placebo). Quatre situations étaient construites en combinant l'issue du test t (significatif vs. non-significatif) et la différence observée D entre les deux moyennes (grande vs. petite). Deux de ces situations apparaissaient conflictuelles (t significatif/ D petite et t non-significatif/D grande). Trois aspects fondamentaux de l'inférence statistique étaient examinés au moyen de questions ouvertes: tirer une conclusion inductive sur la grandeur de la vraie différence, faire une prédiction relative à des d...

How Confident are Students in their Misconceptions about Hypothesis Tests?

“…In fact, Mittag and Thompson (2000), Gordon (2001), and Lecoutre, Poitevineau, and Lecoutre (2003) convincingly showed that even statisticians are not immune to misconceptions about hypothesis tests. For more than twenty years, misconceptions and misuses regarding hypothesis tests have been documented (an historical summary of bad practices can be found in Daniel 1998).…”

Probability as certainty: Dichotomous thinking and the misuse ofp values

“…Although the focus of the significance testing debate has centered on the theoretical arguments for or against it, some research has focused on the interpretation of significance testing outcomes in practice (e.g., Lecoutre et al, 2003;Oakes, 1986;Rosenthal & Gaito, 1963;Weisburd, Lum, & Yang, 2003). For example, Finch et al (2001) focused on misconceptions about significance testing as revealed in published reports.…”

Falacias sobre el valor p compartidas por profesores y estudiantes universitarios

“…ej., Badenes-Ribera et al, 2015;Badenes-Ribera et al, 2016;Haller & Kraus, 2002;Monterde-iBort et al, 2010;Oakes, 1986), en muestras de miembros de la American Educational Research Association (AERA) (p. ej., Mittag & Thompson, 2000) y en profesionales de la Estadística (Lecoutre, Poitevineau, & Lecoutre, 2003).…”