The Ongoing Tyranny Of Statistical Significance Testing

Cohen’s paper The Earth is Round (p>0.05) is a critique of null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST). In his article, Cohen presents his arguments about what is wrong with NHST and suggests ways in which researchers can improve their research, as well as the way they report their research. Cohen’s main point is that researchers who use NHST often misinterpret the meaning of p-values and what can be concluded from them (Cohen, 1994). Cohen also shows that the NHST is close to worthless. NHST is a way to show how unlikely a result would be if the null hypothesis were true. A Type I error is where the researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis and a Type II error is where the researcher incorrectly accepts the false null

Testing allows the p-value that represents the probability showing that results are unlikely to occur by chance. A p-value of 5% or lower is statistically significant. The p value helps in minimizing Type I or Type II errors in the dataset that can often occur when the p value is more than the significance level. The p value can help in stopping the positive and negative correlation between the dataset to reject the null hypothesis and to determine if there is statistical significance in the hypothesis. Understanding the p value is very important in helping researchers to determine the significance of the effect of their experiment and variables for other researchers

Note: the program we used on this worksheet said the results were not significant, but then in statistical notion it had “p < 0.05”. That is confusing because I believe it should be “p >

Since the P-value (0.386) is greater than the significance level (0.05), we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The p-value implies the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis.

The last few weeks we covered descriptive statistic: the central tendency, variability, correlation and Z-score. Today’s session is a little bit different, we will be talking about statistical significance. Statistical significance is the level of risk one is willing to take to reject or accept a null hypothesis while it is true and it separate random error from systematic error. When doing a study or research, the statistical significance shows that the difference obtained were not caused by chance. Inferential statistics, the T-test, partition noise from bias by studying a random sample than the population in which we are interested and from the results we infer. The advantage of using sample than a population, it is convenient, saves time, energy and money because n is smaller than population and above all it helps to control systematic and random errors. When we are making a conclusion, we should have a certain confidence or probability of being right and that is called the alpha level; which the risk you are willing to

According to the above results from MINITAB, the p-value of 0.038 is smaller than the significance level of 0.05; consequently, the null hypothesis will be rejected. There is sufficient evidence to support the

P-value represents a decimal between 1.0 to below .01. Unfortunately, the level of commonly accepted p-value is 0.05. The level of frequency of P>0.05 means that there is one in twenty chance that the whole study is just accidental. In other words, that there is one in twenty chance that a result may be positive in spite of having no actual relationship. This value is an estimate of the probability that the result has occurred by statistical accident. Thus, a small value of P represents a high level of statistical significance and vice

16. The test statistic isA) 1.980B) 1.728C) 2.101D) 1.960Answer: B17. In determining the p-value for reporting the study's findings, which of the following is true?A) The p-value is less than .05.

3. Lancet’s editors should not have publish such a controversial study without further academic experiments and investigations.

The lesson and case studies presented for evaluation was a great learning exercise. A better understanding of how to interpret data was gained. Also, weighing the clinical significance versus the statistical significance to show relevance is invaluable. All research is not quality research and one must be equipped to recognize bias, threats to validity and proper population representation. Moreover, critiquing the credibility of a study is essential to the health care advances.

| Based on explicit knowledge and this can be easy and fast to capture and analyse.Results can be generalised to larger populationsCan be repeated – therefore good test re-test reliability and validityStatistical analyses and interpretation are

COMMENTS argument is that because the average effect size for published research was equivalent to that of a medium effect, the reviewer 's decision to reject the bogus manuscript under the nonsignificant condition was "reasonable." Further examination of the Haase et al. (1982) article and our own analysis of published research, however, demonstrates that the power of the bogus study was great enough to detect effect sizes that are typical of research published in JCP, which was our intention when we designed the bogus study. First, although the median effect size (if) for all univariate statistical tests, significant and nonsignificant, reported by Haase et al. (1982) was .083, this index was steadily increasing at a rate of approximately .5% per year, so that the projected median if- in 1981 (the year our study was completed) would be .13. Importantly, an r)2 of .13 corresponds to an effect size (/) of .39, which Cohen (1977) designates as a large effect. A further examination of the Haase et al. (1982) data also lends support to our argument. Their analysis examined the strength of association for 11,044 univariate statistical tests derived from only 701 manuscripts; thus, each manuscript reported an average of more than 15 statistical tests. Since statistically significant and

With a P-value of 0.00, we have a strong level of significance. No additional information is needed to ensure that the data given is accurate.

This study was limited due to the small sample size. Although the conclusions are valid, more research with a

There are many controversies surrounding the issue of clinical significance vs. statistical significance. Identify one of them and summarize it. Finish with your opinion about