↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
326 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 385 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 376 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 16%
Researcher 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 61 16%
Unknown 92 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 12%
Psychology 27 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 6%
Computer Science 20 5%
Other 124 32%
Unknown 116 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,569,149
of 25,117,541 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#386
of 2,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,805
of 173,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,117,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 173,084 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.