IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ps38b_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Poor Prognosis for the Diagnostic Screening Critique of Statistical Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Mayo, Deborah
  • Morey, Richard Donald

Abstract

Recently, a number of statistical reformers have argued for conceptualizing significance testing as analogous to diagnostic testing, with a "base rate" of true nulls and a test's error probabilities used to compute a "positive predictive value" or "false discovery rate". These quantities are used to critique statistical and scientific practice. We argue against this; these quantities are not relevant for evaluating statistical tests, they add to the confusion over significance testing, and they take the focus away from what matters: evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mayo, Deborah & Morey, Richard Donald, 2017. "A Poor Prognosis for the Diagnostic Screening Critique of Statistical Tests," OSF Preprints ps38b_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ps38b_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ps38b_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/597839476c613b022938a11c/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ps38b_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Goodman & Sander Greenland, 2007. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(4), pages 1-1, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Y. Chen & Tom Zimmermann, 2022. "Publication Bias in Asset Pricing Research," Papers 2209.13623, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    2. Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 411-432, January.
    3. Mayo, Deborah & Morey, Richard Donald, 2017. "A Poor Prognosis for the Diagnostic Screening Critique of Statistical Tests," OSF Preprints ps38b, Center for Open Science.
    4. Lars Ole Schwen & Sabrina Rueschenbaum, 2018. "Ten quick tips for getting the most scientific value out of numerical data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Harlan Campbell & Paul Gustafson, 2019. "The World of Research Has Gone Berserk: Modeling the Consequences of Requiring “Greater Statistical Stringency” for Scientific Publication," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 358-373, March.

    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:osf:osfxxx:ps38b_v1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.