↓ Skip to main content

The significance fallacy in inferential statistics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
64 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The significance fallacy in inferential statistics
Published in
BMC Research Notes, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1020-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton Kühberger, Astrid Fritz, Eva Lermer, Thomas Scherndl

Abstract

Statistical significance is an important concept in empirical science. However the meaning of the term varies widely. We investigate into the intuitive understanding of the notion of significance. We described the results of two different experiments published in a major psychological journal to a sample of students of psychology, labeling the findings as 'significant' versus 'non-significant.' Participants were asked to estimate the effect sizes and sample sizes of the original studies. Labeling the results of a study as significant was associated with estimations of a big effect, but was largely unrelated to sample size. Similarly, non-significant results were estimated as near zero in effect size. After considerable training in statistics, students largely equate statistical significance with medium to large effect sizes, rather than with large sample sizes. The data show that students assume that statistical significance is due to real effects, rather than to 'statistical tricks' (e.g., increasing sample size).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Other 24 29%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 9%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2022.
All research outputs
#739,696
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#62
of 4,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,476
of 292,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.