Predictive power of statistical significance.

Thomas F Heston, Jackson M King
{"title":"Predictive power of statistical significance.","authors":"Thomas F Heston,&nbsp;Jackson M King","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v7.i4.112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A statistically significant research finding should not be defined as a <i>P</i>-value of 0.05 or less, because this definition does not take into account study power. Statistical significance was originally defined by Fisher RA as a <i>P</i>-value of 0.05 or less. According to Fisher, any finding that is likely to occur by random variation no more than 1 in 20 times is considered significant. Neyman J and Pearson ES subsequently argued that Fisher's definition was incomplete. They proposed that statistical significance could only be determined by analyzing the chance of incorrectly considering a study finding was significant (a Type I error) or incorrectly considering a study finding was insignificant (a Type II error). Their definition of statistical significance is also incomplete because the error rates are considered separately, not together. A better definition of statistical significance is the positive predictive value of a <i>P</i>-value, which is equal to the power divided by the sum of power and the <i>P</i>-value. This definition is more complete and relevant than Fisher's or Neyman-Peason's definitions, because it takes into account both concepts of statistical significance. Using this definition, a statistically significant finding requires a <i>P</i>-value of 0.05 or less when the power is at least 95%, and a <i>P</i>-value of 0.032 or less when the power is 60%. To achieve statistical significance, <i>P</i>-values must be adjusted downward as the study power decreases.</p>","PeriodicalId":23729,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"7 4","pages":"112-116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5662/wjm.v7.i4.112","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i4.112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

A statistically significant research finding should not be defined as a P-value of 0.05 or less, because this definition does not take into account study power. Statistical significance was originally defined by Fisher RA as a P-value of 0.05 or less. According to Fisher, any finding that is likely to occur by random variation no more than 1 in 20 times is considered significant. Neyman J and Pearson ES subsequently argued that Fisher's definition was incomplete. They proposed that statistical significance could only be determined by analyzing the chance of incorrectly considering a study finding was significant (a Type I error) or incorrectly considering a study finding was insignificant (a Type II error). Their definition of statistical significance is also incomplete because the error rates are considered separately, not together. A better definition of statistical significance is the positive predictive value of a P-value, which is equal to the power divided by the sum of power and the P-value. This definition is more complete and relevant than Fisher's or Neyman-Peason's definitions, because it takes into account both concepts of statistical significance. Using this definition, a statistically significant finding requires a P-value of 0.05 or less when the power is at least 95%, and a P-value of 0.032 or less when the power is 60%. To achieve statistical significance, P-values must be adjusted downward as the study power decreases.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

统计显著性的预测能力。
统计上显著的研究发现不应该被定义为p值小于0.05,因为这个定义没有考虑到研究能力。Fisher RA最初将统计显著性定义为p值小于等于0.05。根据Fisher的说法,任何可能由随机变异产生的发现不超过1 / 20次就被认为是有意义的。Neyman J和Pearson ES随后认为费雪的定义是不完整的。他们提出,统计显著性只能通过分析错误地认为研究发现是显著的(类型I错误)或错误地认为研究发现是不显著的(类型II错误)的机会来确定。他们对统计显著性的定义也是不完整的,因为错误率是单独考虑的,而不是一起考虑的。统计显著性更好的定义是p值的正预测值,它等于幂除以幂和p值的和。这个定义比费雪或内曼-皮森的定义更完整、更相关,因为它考虑了统计显著性的两个概念。使用这个定义,当功率至少为95%时,统计显著性发现要求p值小于等于0.05,当功率为60%时,p值小于等于0.032。为了达到统计显著性,p值必须随着研究能力的降低而向下调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信