This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In this paper we consider a controversy on the use and interpretation of p-values in applied research. In recent years several applied and theoretical journals have started to discuss on the appropriate use of p-values in research fields such as Psychology, Ecology, and Medicine. First, the notion of p-value has some intrinsic limitations, which have been already highlighted in the statistical literature, but are far from being recognized in applied research. Second, it has emerged the so-called practice of p-hacking, which consists in analyzing and re-analyzing data until obtaining a significant result in terms of a p-value less than 0.05. In the light of these problems, we review two alternative theoretical frameworks, given by the use of Bayes factor and a recent proposal that leads to evaluate statistical hypotheses in terms of a priori and a posteriori odds ratios.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quatto et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: