IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v73y2019is1p129-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence From Marginally Significant t Statistics

Author

Listed:
  • Valen E. Johnson

Abstract

This article examines the evidence contained in t statistics that are marginally significant in 5% tests. The bases for evaluating evidence are likelihood ratios and integrated likelihood ratios, computed under a variety of assumptions regarding the alternative hypotheses in null hypothesis significance tests. Likelihood ratios and integrated likelihood ratios provide a useful measure of the evidence in favor of competing hypotheses because they can be interpreted as representing the ratio of the probabilities that each hypothesis assigns to observed data. When they are either very large or very small, they suggest that one hypothesis is much better than the other in predicting observed data. If they are close to 1.0, then both hypotheses provide approximately equally valid explanations for observed data. I find that p-values that are close to 0.05 (i.e., that are “marginally significant”) correspond to integrated likelihood ratios that are bounded by approximately 7 in two-sided tests, and by approximately 4 in one-sided tests.The modest magnitude of integrated likelihood ratios corresponding to p-values close to 0.05 clearly suggests that higher standards of evidence are needed to support claims of novel discoveries and new effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Valen E. Johnson, 2019. "Evidence From Marginally Significant t Statistics," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 129-134, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:129-134
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1518788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518788
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:129-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.