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

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals01:19

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals

8.8K
A confidence interval is a better estimate of the population than a point estimate, as it uses a range of values from a sample instead of a single value.
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
8.8K
Confidence Intervals01:21

Confidence Intervals

9.3K
An unbiased point estimate is often insufficient to predict a population estimate, such as population mean or population proportion. In this scenario, a confidence interval is used. A confidence interval is an estimate similar to a sample proportion. However, unlike the point estimate which is a single value, the confidence interval contains a range of values. These values have lower and upper limits, known as confidence limits, and can be designated as L1 and L2, respectively.
A confidence...
9.3K
Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals00:54

Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals

9.9K
The confidence interval is the range of values around the mean that contains the true mean. It is expressed as a probability percentage. The interpretation of a 95% confidence interval, for instance, is that the statistician is 95% confident that the true mean falls within the interval. The upper and lower limits of this range are known as confidence limits. The confidence limits for the true mean are estimated from the sample's mean, the standard deviation, and the statistical factor...
9.9K
Confidence Interval for Estimating Population Mean01:25

Confidence Interval for Estimating Population Mean

7.6K
A point estimate of the population mean is obtained from a single sample. Such a point estimate does not represent a population well because it needs to account for variability in the population. Single point estimate can also be biased despite the sample being selected randomly. Thus, a point estimate is often unreliable. A confidence interval is needed to reduce this unreliability.
A confidence interval for the mean is a range of values that provides an estimate of the population mean. As the...
7.6K
Confidence Coefficient01:24

Confidence Coefficient

9.2K
The confidence coefficient is also known as the confidence level or degree of confidence. It is the percent expression for the probability, 1-α, that the confidence interval contains the true population parameter assuming that the confidence interval is obtained after sufficient unbiased sampling; for example, if the CL = 90%, then in 90 out of 100 samples the interval estimate will enclose the true population parameter. Here α is the area under the curve, distributed equally under...
9.2K
Prediction Intervals01:03

Prediction Intervals

2.5K
The interval estimate of any variable is known as the prediction interval. It helps decide if a point estimate is dependable.
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y. 
2.5K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Robust Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis: Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of dependent effect sizes.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Assessing qualitative individual differences with Bayesian hierarchical latent-mixture models.

Psychological methods·2026
Same author

Random-effects psychophysics for studying individual differences in perception and cognition.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same author

Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences.

Nature·2026
Same author

Investigating the analytical robustness of the social and behavioural sciences.

Nature·2026
Same author

Estimating correlations across tasks in experimental psychology.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 4, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.3K

Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals.

Rink Hoekstra1, Richard D Morey, Jeffrey N Rouder

  • 1University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, r.hoekstra@rug.nl.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|January 15, 2014
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Many psychology researchers and students misunderstand confidence intervals (CIs), a common statistical tool. This widespread misinterpretation of CIs and p-values hinders accurate data analysis and conclusions in psychological research.

More Related Videos

Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness
07:37

Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness

Published on: August 1, 2017

11.4K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

7.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 4, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.3K
Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness
07:37

Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness

Published on: August 1, 2017

11.4K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

7.0K

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Statistics

Background:

  • Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the predominant inferential method in social sciences.
  • NHST outcomes are frequently misinterpreted, leading to calls for alternatives like confidence intervals (CIs).
  • Understanding of CIs among researchers is not well-documented.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how psychology researchers and students interpret confidence intervals (CIs).
  • To assess the prevalence of misunderstandings regarding CI interpretation in psychology.

Main Methods:

  • 120 psychology researchers and 442 psychology students were surveyed.
  • Participants evaluated the truthfulness of six statements about CI interpretation.
  • Performance was compared between researchers and students, considering statistical experience.

Main Results:

  • Both researchers and students incorrectly endorsed an average of over three false statements about CIs.
  • Researchers' self-reported statistics experience did not correlate with their performance.
  • Researchers showed minimal performance advantage over students who had no formal statistical inference training.

Conclusions:

  • A significant portion of psychology researchers demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of confidence interval interpretation.
  • Misinterpretations of p-values and CIs are problematic as they are key tools for drawing conclusions in psychology.
  • Improved statistical education and interpretation guidelines are crucial for psychological research integrity.