Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Errors In Hypothesis Tests01:14

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
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...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value01:13

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value

In healthcare diagnostics, laboratory tests play a crucial role in identifying and diagnosing a wide range of medical conditions. However, interpreting test results is not always straightforward. An abnormal test result does not always confirm the presence of a disease, just as a normal result does not guarantee its absence. To assess the reliability of these diagnostic tools, healthcare practitioners rely on two key statistical indicators: sensitivity and specificity.
Sensitivity is the...
Statistical Hypothesis Testing01:16

Statistical Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a critical statistical procedure facilitating informed, evidence-based decisions. It begins with a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation, or a prediction about a population parameter. This hypothesis can be either a null hypothesis (H0), indicating no effect or difference, or an alternative hypothesis (Ha), suggesting an effect or difference.
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
Types of Hypothesis Testing01:11

Types of Hypothesis Testing

There are three types of hypothesis tests: right-tailed, left-tailed, and two-tailed.
When the null and alternative hypotheses are stated, it is observed that the null hypothesis is a neutral statement against which the alternative hypothesis is tested. The alternative hypothesis is a claim that instead has a certain direction. If the null hypothesis claims that p = 0.5, the alternative hypothesis would be an opposing statement to this and can be put either p > 0.5, p < 0.5, or p ≠ 0.5.
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?01:17

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?

The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null hypothesis and 'fail to...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Citation penalties following sexual versus scientific misconduct allegations.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Choices without preferences: Principles of rational arbitrariness.

Psychological review·2025
Same author

Taboo language across the globe: A multi-lab study.

Behavior research methods·2024
Same author

Political orientation, trust and discriminatory beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom.

The British journal of social psychology·2023
Same author

Induced gratitude and hope, and experienced fear, but not experienced disgust, facilitate COVID-19 prevention.

Cognition & emotion·2023
Same author

Incomplete preferences and rational framing effects.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2022
Same journal

EXPRESS: When illusion rivals reality. Investigating error detection and the role of working memory resources in the Vanishing Ball Illusion.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Metaphors and the Body: Perceived Locations for the Self are Influenced by Conceptual Metaphor.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Age-related Differences in Recognition Memory for Discourse: The Case of Modified Words, Competitors, and Related Lures.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Exaggerated Self-Referencing in Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

EXPRESS: Post-Error Adjustments: The role of Response Stimulus Intervals and error placement.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
Same journal

Mitigating the Low Prevalence Effect: Role of Removing Explicit "Target-Absent" Responses in Visual Search.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 11, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
06:16

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Published on: August 9, 2024

Insensitivity and oversensitivity to answer diagnosticity in hypothesis testing.

Patrice Rusconi1, Craig R M McKenzie

  • 1a Department of Psychology , University of Milano-Bicocca , Milano , Italy.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006)
|May 18, 2013
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

People often misjudge how informative "yes" and "no" answers are, especially when "no" answers are more diagnostic. Providing complete probability information improves understanding of answer diagnosticity.

More Related Videos

A Semi-High-Throughput Adaptation of the NADH-Coupled ATPase Assay for Screening Small Molecule Inhibitors
10:28

A Semi-High-Throughput Adaptation of the NADH-Coupled ATPase Assay for Screening Small Molecule Inhibitors

Published on: August 17, 2019

A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans
07:28

A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans

Published on: December 19, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 11, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
06:16

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Published on: August 9, 2024

A Semi-High-Throughput Adaptation of the NADH-Coupled ATPase Assay for Screening Small Molecule Inhibitors
10:28

A Semi-High-Throughput Adaptation of the NADH-Coupled ATPase Assay for Screening Small Molecule Inhibitors

Published on: August 17, 2019

A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans
07:28

A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans

Published on: December 19, 2016

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Making
  • Bayesian Inference

Background:

  • Understanding how individuals assess the evidential value of information is crucial for decision-making.
  • Previous research indicates a general underestimation of answer diagnosticity.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how people perceive the diagnosticity of "yes" and "no" answers under varying information formats.
  • To examine factors influencing insensitivity and oversensitivity to answer diagnosticity.

Main Methods:

  • Two experiments were conducted manipulating information presentation (occurrence vs. occurrence and absence of features).
  • Participants evaluated the diagnosticity of "yes" and "no" answers to questions.

Main Results:

  • Participants consistently underestimated answer diagnosticity, particularly when "no" answers were normatively more diagnostic.
  • Oversensitivity was observed, with participants deeming normatively equal answers as differentially diagnostic.
  • Presenting feature occurrence and absence probabilities enhanced sensitivity to diagnosticity.

Conclusions:

  • Individuals exhibit biases in evaluating information diagnosticity, impacting hypothesis testing.
  • Providing complete probabilistic information can mitigate biases in assessing the value of evidence.