HARTIG, Florian; BARRAQUAND, Frédéric

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.011

Metadatos

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem

Licencia de uso del documento

HARTIG, Florian
Universität Regensburg [UR]

BARRAQUAND, Frédéric
Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux [IMB]

Idioma

Article de revue

Este ítem está publicado en

Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2022-07, vol. 37, n° 7, p. 569-570

Elsevier

Resumen en inglés

In a recent opinion article, Muff et al. recapitulate well-known objections to the Neyman-Pearson Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) framework and call for reforming our practices in statistical reporting. We agree with them on several important points: the significance threshold P<0.05 is only a convention, chosen as a compromise between type I and II error rates; transforming the p-value into a dichotomous statement leads to a loss of information; and p-values should be interpreted together with other statistical indicators, in particular effect sizes and their uncertainty. In our view, a lot of progress in reporting results can already be achieved by keeping these three points in mind. We were surprised and worried, however, by Muff et al.'s suggestion to interpret the p-value as a "gradual notion of evidence". Muff et al. recommend, for example, that a P-value > 0.1 should be reported as "little or no evidence" and a P-value of 0.001 as "strong evidence" in favor of the alternative hypothesis H1.< Leer menos

Metadatos

Compartir este ítem

Licencia de uso del documento

The evidence contained in the P-value is context dependent

Idioma

Este ítem está publicado en

Resumen en inglés

URI

DOI

Orígen

Centros de investigación