News


Why Frank Harrell does not like p-values by Frank Harrel [outside article]

|

With the many problems that p-values have, and the temptation to “bless” research when the p-value falls below an arbitrary threshold such as 0.05 or 0.005, researchers using p-values should at least be fully aware of what they are getting. They need to know exactly what a p-value means and what are the assumptions required… Read More

Note on small p-value hacking by Thomas Lumley [outside article]

|

The proposal to change p-value thresholds from 0.05 to 0.005 won’t die. I think it’s targeting the wrong question:  many studies are too weak in various ways to provide the sort of reliable evidence they want to claim, and the choices available in analysis and publication process eat up too much of that limited information. … Read More

Comment on proposal to lower the p-value threshold to 0.005 by John Ionnidis [outside article]

|

P values and accompanying methods of statistical significance testing are creating challenges in biomedical science and other disciplines. The vast majority (96%) of articles that report P values in the abstract, full text, or both include some values of .05 or less.1 However, many of the claims that these reports highlight are likely false.2 Recognizing the major importance of the… Read More