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

Support Everything Hertz

How we got hooked on credit cards | from TED Talks Daily

TED Business

Outro

The AI-powered Podcast Player