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
- The article
- Geoff Cumming's book (we got the name completely wrong - sorry Geoff!)
The story on research passing the 'pub' test
Twitter accountSupport Everything Hertz