↓ Skip to main content

t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—a paradox of statistical practice?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
263 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
319 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—a paradox of statistical practice?
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten W Fagerland

Abstract

During the last 30 years, the median sample size of research studies published in high-impact medical journals has increased manyfold, while the use of non-parametric tests has increased at the expense of t-tests. This paper explores this paradoxical practice and illustrates its consequences.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 310 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 17%
Student > Master 55 17%
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 56 18%
Unknown 58 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 8%
Psychology 22 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 6%
Computer Science 16 5%
Other 108 34%
Unknown 81 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,589,668
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#397
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,466
of 167,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 167,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 96% of its contemporaries.