» Articles » PMID: 36267575

Replacing Statistical Significance and Non-significance with Better Approaches to Sampling Uncertainty

Overview
Journal Front Physiol
Date 2022 Oct 21
PMID 36267575
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Meta-analyses of the effects of high-intensity interval training in elite athletes-part I: mean effects on various performance measures.

Wiesinger H, Stoggl T, Haller N, Blumkaitis J, Strepp T, Kilzer F Front Physiol. 2025; 15():1486526.

PMID: 39830026 PMC: 11739151. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1486526.


The Effects of Torso-Borne Loads on Functional Movement Patterns.

Bell K, Brooks J, Radzak K, Mulvenon S, Schilling B Int J Exerc Sci. 2024; 17(7):975-984.

PMID: 39252849 PMC: 11382776. DOI: 10.70252/HTJH7644.


The "sweet- and sour-spot" of occupational physical activity for back pain: a prospective accelerometer study among eldercare workers.

Kyriakidis S, Lund Rasmussen C, Sogaard K, Holtermann A, Rasmussen C, Gupta N Scand J Work Environ Health. 2024; 50(5):341-350.

PMID: 38874546 PMC: 11239222. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.4170.


Adverse childhood experiences: a meta-analysis of prevalence and moderators among half a million adults in 206 studies.

Madigan S, Deneault A, Racine N, Park J, Thiemann R, Zhu J World Psychiatry. 2023; 22(3):463-471.

PMID: 37713544 PMC: 10503911. DOI: 10.1002/wps.21122.


The associations between physical-test performance and match performance in women's Rugby Sevens players.

Sella F, Hopkins W, Beaven C, McMaster D, Gill N, Hebert-Losier K Biol Sport. 2023; 40(3):775-785.

PMID: 37398974 PMC: 10286606. DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2023.119985.


References
1.
Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B . Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019; 567(7748):305-307. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9. View

2.
Burton P . Helping doctors to draw appropriate inferences from the analysis of medical studies. Stat Med. 1994; 13(17):1699-713. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780131702. View

3.
Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin J . Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 41(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278. View

4.
Greenland S . Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundations and basic methods. Int J Epidemiol. 2006; 35(3):765-75. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyi312. View

5.
Barker R, Schofield M . Inference about magnitudes of effects. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009; 3(4):547-57. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.3.4.547. View