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

Outliers and Influential Points01:08

Outliers and Influential Points

4.2K
An outlier is an observation of data that does not fit the rest of the data. It is sometimes called an extreme value. When you graph an outlier, it will appear not to fit the pattern of the graph. Some outliers are due to mistakes (for example, writing down 50 instead of 500), while others may indicate that something unusual is happening. Outliers are present far from the least squares line in the vertical direction. They have large "errors," where the "error" or residual is the...
4.2K
What Are Outliers?01:12

What Are Outliers?

4.0K
Outliers are observed data points that are far from the least squares line. They have unusual values and need to be examined carefully. Though an outlier may result from erroneous data, at other times, it may hold valuable information about the population under study and should be included in the data. Hence, it is crucial to examine what causes a data point to be an outlier.
The z score is used to find outliers or unusual values. It should be noted that any values beyond -2 and +2 are...
4.0K
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.3K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.3K
Quantifying and Rejecting Outliers: The Grubbs Test01:02

Quantifying and Rejecting Outliers: The Grubbs Test

1.7K
Sometimes, a data set can have a recorded numerical observation that greatly  deviates from the rest of the data. Assuming that the data is normally distributed, a statistical method called the Grubbs test can be used to determine whether the observation is truly an outlier.  To perform a two-tailed Grubbs test, first, calculate the absolute difference between the outlier and the mean. Then, calculate the ratio between this difference and the standard deviation of the sample. This...
1.7K
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

6.3K
Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...
6.3K
Modified Boxplots00:57

Modified Boxplots

9.9K
A standard box and whisker plot informs us about the spread of the data in a given sample. One can identify the minimum value, maximum value, first quartile value, second quartile or median value, and third quartile.
However, the box plot does not tell the reader about outliers - values that lie far from the center of the data. We can modify the standard box and whisker plot to identify the outliers and visualize the actual spread of the data in a sample.
Initially, we calculate the adjusted...
9.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Investigating the analytical robustness of the social and behavioural sciences.

Nature·2026
Same author

Effects of a guided digital intervention on sleep and mental health outcomes in university students - a randomized controlled trial.

Sleep·2025
Same author

Beyond Pearson's Correlation: Modern Nonparametric Independence Tests for Psychological Research.

Multivariate behavioral research·2024
Same author

A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.

Psychologica Belgica·2024
Same author

Social anxiety is related to reduced face gaze during a naturalistic social interaction.

Anxiety, stress, and coping·2022
Same journal

Executive function and social behavior: Causal evidence from loading working memory and inhibitory control.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Correction to "Your research is public engagement: A case for more intentional science communication in research with human subjects" by Vaughn (2026).

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Correction to "Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial" by Jacques-Hamilton et al. (2019).

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Conveying (discrete) emotionality with novel words.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

Physical actions shape moral choices: Environment-directed movements reduce cheating in young children.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same journal

From chunks to schemas: Learning in the Hebb repetition paradigm.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 1, 2025

A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences
08:33

A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences

Published on: September 4, 2019

7.1K

Outliers may not be automatically removed.

Julian D Karch1

  • 1Methodology and Statistics Department, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University.

Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
|April 27, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Hypothesis-blind outlier removal, even across groups, can inflate Type I errors and bias estimates, contrary to recent recommendations. Data points should not be removed solely for being outliers.

More Related Videos

Competitive Genomic Screens of Barcoded Yeast Libraries
11:59

Competitive Genomic Screens of Barcoded Yeast Libraries

Published on: August 11, 2011

18.4K
Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation
13:04

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation

Published on: January 18, 2022

4.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 1, 2025

A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences
08:33

A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences

Published on: September 4, 2019

7.1K
Competitive Genomic Screens of Barcoded Yeast Libraries
11:59

Competitive Genomic Screens of Barcoded Yeast Libraries

Published on: August 11, 2011

18.4K
Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation
13:04

Experimental and Data Analysis Workflow for Soft Matter Nanoindentation

Published on: January 18, 2022

4.0K

Area of Science:

  • Statistics
  • Psychological Research Methods

Background:

  • Outlier removal is common in group comparisons.
  • Removing outliers within groups is known to inflate Type I error rates.
  • Recent arguments suggested removing outliers across groups avoids this inflation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the validity of hypothesis-blind outlier removal.
  • To demonstrate the problematic nature of hypothesis-blind outlier removal.
  • To provide alternative valid methods for outlier handling.

Main Methods:

  • Demonstration of statistical invalidity of hypothesis-blind outlier removal.
  • Analysis of bias in estimates and confidence interval validity.
  • Examination of Type I error rates under specific conditions (unequal variances, non-normal data).

Main Results:

  • Hypothesis-blind outlier removal almost always invalidates confidence intervals.
  • Estimates are biased when group differences exist.
  • Type I error rates are inflated in specific scenarios, such as unequal variances and non-normal data.

Conclusions:

  • Hypothesis-blind outlier removal is problematic and should not be recommended.
  • Data points should not be removed solely based on outlier status.
  • Valid alternatives for outlier handling are necessary and recommended.