Related Experiment Videos
The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and
Luis Carlos Silva-Ayçaguer1, Patricio Suárez-Gil, Ana Fernández-Somoano
1Centro Nacional de Investigación de Ciencias Médicas, La Habana, Cuba.
Background:
The null hypothesis significance test (NHST) is the most frequently used statistical method, although its inferential validity has been widely criticized since its introduction. In 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) warned against sole reliance on NHST to substantiate study conclusions and suggested supplementary use of confidence intervals (CI). Our objective was to evaluate the extent and quality in the use of NHST and CI, both in English and Spanish language biomedical publications between 1995 and 2006, taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on the accuracy of the interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.
Methods:
Original articles published in three English and three Spanish biomedical journals in three fields (General Medicine, Clinical Specialties and Epidemiology - Public Health) were considered for this study. Papers published in 1995-1996, 2000-2001, and 2005-2006 were selected through a systematic sampling method. After excluding the purely descriptive and theoretical articles, analytic studies were evaluated for their use of NHST with P-values and/or CI for interpretation of statistical "significance" and "relevance" in study conclusions.
Results:
Among 1,043 original papers, 874 were selected for detailed review. The exclusive use of P-values was less frequent in English language publications as well as in Public Health journals; overall such use decreased from 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. While the use of CI increased over time, the "significance fallacy" (to equate statistical and substantive significance) appeared very often, mainly in journals devoted to clinical specialties (81%). In papers originally written in English and Spanish, 15% and 10%, respectively, mentioned statistical significance in their conclusions.
Conclusions:
Overall, results of our review show some improvements in statistical management of statistical results, but further efforts by scholars and journal editors are clearly required to move the communication toward ICMJE advices, especially in the clinical setting, which seems to be imperative among publications in Spanish.
Related Concept Videos
01:04Significance Testing: Overview
01:16Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
01:14Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
01:16Critical Region, Critical Values and Significance Level
In hypothesis testing, a sample statistic is converted to a test statistic using z, t, or chi-square distribution. A critical region is an area under the curve in probability distributions demarcated by the critical value. When the test statistic falls in this region, it suggests that the null hypothesis must be rejected. As this region contains all those values of the test...
01:13Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
01:16Null and Alternative Hypotheses
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the population that is...