| Title |
The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard D. Morey, Rink Hoekstra, Jeffrey N. Rouder, Michael D. Lee, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers |
| Abstract |
Interval estimates - estimates of parameters that include an allowance for sampling uncertainty - have long been touted as a key component of statistical analyses. There are several kinds of interval estimates, but the most popular are confidence intervals (CIs): intervals that contain the true parameter value in some known proportion of repeated samples, on average. The width of confidence intervals is thought to index the precision of an estimate; CIs are thought to be a guide to which parameter values are plausible or reasonable; and the confidence coefficient of the interval (e.g., 95 %) is thought to index the plausibility that the true parameter is included in the interval. We show in a number of examples that CIs do not necessarily have any of these properties, and can lead to unjustified or arbitrary inferences. For this reason, we caution against relying upon confidence interval theory to justify interval estimates, and suggest that other theories of interval estimation should be used instead. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 183 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 30 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 18 | 10% |
| France | 6 | 3% |
| Germany | 5 | 3% |
| Cameroon | 4 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 2% |
| Mexico | 4 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 81 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 111 | 61% |
| Scientists | 63 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,037 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | <1% |
| Germany | 9 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| Japan | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 2% |
| Unknown | 969 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 253 | 24% |
| Researcher | 195 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 123 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 80 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 58 | 6% |
| Other | 211 | 20% |
| Unknown | 117 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 298 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 62 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 52 | 5% |
| Other | 310 | 30% |
| Unknown | 176 | 17% |