论文标题
p值中包含的证据取决于上下文
The evidence contained in the P-value is context dependent
论文作者
论文摘要
在最近的意见文章中，Muff等人。概述了对Neyman-Pearson无效 - 假设测试（NHST）框架的众所周知的异议，并呼吁改革我们在统计报告中的做法。我们在几个重要方面同意他们的看法：显着性阈值p <0.05只是一项约定，被选为I型错误率和II型错误率之间的妥协；将p值转换为二分法陈述会导致信息损失； P值应与其他统计指标一起解释，特别是效应大小及其不确定性。在我们看来，通过牢记这三个要点，可以在报告结果方面取得很多进展。然而，Muff等人的建议将P值解释为“证据的逐步概念”，我们感到惊讶和担心。 Muff等。例如，建议将p值> 0.1报告为“很少或没有证据”，而p值为0.001作为“有力证据”，以支持替代假设H1。
In a recent opinion article, Muff et al. recapitulate well-known objections to the Neyman-Pearson Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) framework and call for reforming our practices in statistical reporting. We agree with them on several important points: the significance threshold P<0.05 is only a convention, chosen as a compromise between type I and II error rates; transforming the p-value into a dichotomous statement leads to a loss of information; and p-values should be interpreted together with other statistical indicators, in particular effect sizes and their uncertainty. In our view, a lot of progress in reporting results can already be achieved by keeping these three points in mind. We were surprised and worried, however, by Muff et al.'s suggestion to interpret the p-value as a "gradual notion of evidence". Muff et al. recommend, for example, that a P-value > 0.1 should be reported as "little or no evidence" and a P-value of 0.001 as "strong evidence" in favor of the alternative hypothesis H1.
