P-values are universal, but do we really know what they mean? In this episode, Dan and James discuss a recent paper describing the failure to correctly interpret p-values in a sample of academic psychologists.
Some of the topics discussed:
- Common p-value misconceptions
- James tests Dan on his p-value knowledge
- p-values vs. effect size
- The problem of sample size with p-value interpretation
- The Facebook mood manipulation study
- Data peeking
- Equivalent p-values do not represent equivalent results
- Meta-analytical thinking
- Using significance as a categorical factor
- Statistical vs. clinical significance
- Clinical trial registration and 'secondary outcome creep'
- Dan and James answer listener questions
- Science communicator vs. scientist
- Grant titles and the 'Pub test'
- NASA and social media
Links
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01247/full
- Geoff Cumming's book (we got the name completely wrong - sorry Geoff!)
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-The-New-Statistics-Meta-Analysis-ebook/dp/B007M9D76G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QWKES82EP85DBAEKNT1
The story on research passing the 'pub' test
https://theconversation.com/if-youre-going-to-ridicule-research-do-your-homework-64238
Real scientists
http://realscientists.org
Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/
Twitter account
https://www.twitter.com
