Wasserstein 2016 The American Statistician: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician [Epub ahead of print]. |info=[http...") ย |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician | |title=Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70:129-33. | ||
|info=[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 Open Access] | |info=[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 Open Access] | ||
|authors=Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA | |authors=Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA |
Revision as of 10:12, 7 December 2016
Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70:129-33. |
ยป Open Access
Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The American Statistician
Abstract: In February, 2014, George Cobb, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics at Mount Holyoke College, posed these questions to an ASA discussion forum: Q: Why do so many colleges and grad schools teach p = .05? A: Because that's still what the scientific community and journal editors use. Q: Why do so many people still use p = 0.05? A: Because that's what they were taught in college or grad school. Cobbโs concern was a long-worrisome circularity in the sociology of science based on the use of bright lines such as P < 0.05 : โWe teach it because itโs what we do; we do it because itโs what we teach.โ This concern was brought to the attention of the ASA Board.
The ASA Board was also stimulated by highly visible discussions over the last few years. For example, ScienceNews (Siegfried, 2010) wrote: โItโs scienceโs dirtiest secret: The โscientific methodโ of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.โ A November, 2013, article in Phys.org Science News Wire (2013) cited โnumerous deep flawsโ in null hypothesis significance testing. A ScienceNews article (Siegfried, 2014) on February 7, 2014, said โstatistical techniques for testing hypothesesโฆhave more flaws than Facebookโs privacy policies.โ A week later, statistician and โSimply Statisticsโ blogger Jeff Leek responded. โThe problem is not that people use P-values poorly,โ Leek wrote, โit is that the vast majority of data analysis is not performed by people properly trained to perform data analysisโ (Leek, 2014). ...
Labels:
Editorial