Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Significance, truth and proof of p values: reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Our statistics should not become substitutes instead of aids to thought

After Bakan [1]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Baken, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carver, R. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378–399.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fayers, P. M. (2008). The scales were highly correlated: p = 0.001. Quality of Life Research, 17, 651–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5, 241–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilkinson, L., & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Glaser, D. N. (1999). The controversy of significance testing: Misconceptions and alternatives. American Journal of Critical Care, 8, 291–296.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologists, 49, 997–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mathilde G. E. Verdam & Frans J. Oort

  2. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mathilde G. E. Verdam, Frans J. Oort & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers

Authors
  1. Mathilde G. E. Verdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frans J. Oort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathilde G. E. Verdam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verdam, M.G.E., Oort, F.J. & Sprangers, M.A.G. Significance, truth and proof of p values: reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing . Qual Life Res 23, 5–7 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0437-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0437-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation