25: Misunderstanding p-values

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 The article 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