Replacing statistical significance and non-significance with better approaches to sampling uncertainty.

Will G Hopkins
Author Information
  1. Will G Hopkins: Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Abstract

A sample provides only an approximate estimate of the magnitude of an effect, owing to sampling uncertainty. The following methods address the issue of sampling uncertainty when researchers make a claim about effect magnitude: informal assessment of the range of magnitudes represented by the confidence interval; testing of hypotheses of substantial (meaningful) and non-substantial magnitudes; assessment of the probabilities of substantial and trivial (inconsequential) magnitudes with Bayesian methods based on non-informative or informative priors; and testing of the nil or zero hypothesis. Assessment of the confidence interval, testing of substantial and non-substantial hypotheses, and assessment of Bayesian probabilities with a non-informative prior are subject to differing interpretations but are all effectively equivalent and can reasonably define and provide necessary and sufficient evidence for substantial and trivial effects. Informative priors in Bayesian assessments are problematic, because they are hard to quantify and can bias the outcome. Rejection of the nil hypothesis (presented as statistical significance), and failure to reject the nil hypothesis (presented as statistical non-significance), provide neither necessary nor sufficient evidence for substantial and trivial effects. To properly account for sampling uncertainty in effect magnitudes, researchers should therefore replace rather than supplement the nil-hypothesis test with one or more of the other three equivalent methods. Surprisal values, second-generation values, and the hypothesis comparisons of evidential statistics are three other recent approaches to sampling uncertainty that are not recommended. Important issues beyond sampling uncertainty include representativeness of sampling, accuracy of the statistical model, individual differences, individual responses, and rewards of benefit and costs of harm of clinically or practically important interventions and side effects.

Keywords

References

  1. Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7748):305-307 [PMID: 30894741]
  2. Stat Med. 1994 Sep 15;13(17):1699-713 [PMID: 7997704]
  3. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Jan;41(1):3-13 [PMID: 19092709]
  4. Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;35(3):765-75 [PMID: 16446352]
  5. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008 Dec;3(4):547-57 [PMID: 19223677]
  6. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006 Mar;1(1):50-7 [PMID: 19114737]
  7. Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;43(6):1969-85 [PMID: 25080530]
  8. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 26;15(6):e0235318 [PMID: 32589653]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;25(1):7-29 [PMID: 24220629]
  10. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019 Sep;29(9):1428-1436 [PMID: 31149752]
  11. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Apr;47(4):885 [PMID: 25783666]
  12. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Oct;50(10):2166-2176 [PMID: 29683920]
  13. Sports Med. 2016 Oct;46(10):1563-73 [PMID: 26971328]
  14. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 30;20(1):244 [PMID: 32998683]
  15. Br J Sports Med. 2019 Sep;53(18):1141-1153 [PMID: 30862704]
  16. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Apr;47(4):874-84 [PMID: 25051387]
  17. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2013 Feb;66(1):8-38 [PMID: 22364575]
  18. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Mar;51(3):599 [PMID: 30365421]
  19. Lancet. 2001 Apr 28;357(9265):1349-53 [PMID: 11343760]
  20. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008 Dec;3(4):411-2 [PMID: 19238762]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0samplinguncertaintysubstantialeffectmagnitudesBayesianhypothesisstatisticalmethodsassessmentconfidenceintervaltestingtrivialnileffectssignificancemagnituderesearchershypothesesnon-substantialprobabilitiesnon-informativepriorsequivalentcanprovidenecessarysufficientevidencepresentednon-significancetestthreevaluesapproachesindividualinferencesampleprovidesapproximateestimateowingfollowingaddressissuemakeclaimmagnitude:informalrangerepresentedmeaningfulinconsequentialbasedinformativezeroAssessmentpriorsubjectdifferinginterpretationseffectivelyreasonablydefineInformativeassessmentsproblematichardquantifybiasoutcomeRejectionfailurerejectneitherproperlyaccountthereforereplacerathersupplementnil-hypothesisoneSurprisalsecond-generationcomparisonsevidentialstatisticsrecentrecommendedImportantissuesbeyondincluderepresentativenessaccuracymodeldifferencesresponsesrewardsbenefitcostsharmclinicallypracticallyimportantinterventionssideReplacingbettermagnitude-based

Similar Articles

Cited By