A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions.

By Steven N. Goodman. Seminars in hematology (Print), 2008

670 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Physiology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ace8fea1e22ac42546178c3246a80b080679775

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Physiology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Testing Similarity Effects with Dyadic Response Surface Analysis (2018, background): “…is the case with a non-rejected null hypothesis, a non-significant difference of paths on its own is no direct evidence of ‘no difference’ (e.g. Goodman, 2008) but should rather be interpreted as ‘not enough power to detect a potential difference’, depending on the sample size and the…”
Big data, bigger dilemmas: A critical review (2015, background): “A similar question arises in regards to the “output,” so to speak, in the form of a longstanding debate over the value of significance tests (e.g., Gelman & Stern, 2006; Gliner, Leech, & Morgan, 2002; Goodman, 1999; Goodman, 2008; Nieuwenhuis, Forstmann, & Wagenmakers, 2011).”
Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations (2016, background): “…and Boen 1972; Berkson 1942; Bland and Altman 2015; Chia 1997; Cohen 1994; Evans et al. 1988; Fidler and Loftus 2009; Gardner and Altman 1986; Gelman 2013; Gelman and Loken 2014; Gelman and Stern 2006; Gigerenzer 2004; Gigerenzer and Marewski 2015; Goodman 1992, 1993, 1999, 2008; Greenland 2011,”
Strengthening statistical usage in marine ecology (2012, background): “Twelve such fallacies have been tabulated by Goodman (2008); the following is a list of the most egregious misinterpretations, and their mis-applications in marine ecological studies, compiled over years of reviewing: A. Statistical significance.”
Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value (2017, background): “While potentially subject to mis-use and misinterpretation (1,5-12), the p-value can be informative as a continuous measure of evidence as to whether an association is present.”
On p-Values and Bayes Factors (2018, background): “Most prominent is the widespread belief that the P -value is the probability of a “chance finding”, i. e. the probability of the null hypothesis, but many other misinterpretations can also be found (Goodman 2008; Greenland et al. 2016).”
Three Recommendations for Improving the Use of p-Values (2019, methodology): “Of the many misinterpretations of p-values (for some examples, see Goodman 2008; Greenland et al. 2016), some are attempts to use the p-value to answer the SOEQ.”
Sensitivity and Specificity of Information Criteria (2018, neutral): “The use of Bayes factors has been argued to be more interpretable than that of significance tests in some practical settings (Raftery, 1996; Goodman, 2008; Beard et al, 2016) although with some caveats (see Gigerenzer and Marewski, 2015; Murtaugh, 2014).”