↓ Skip to main content

Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
7 blogs
twitter
91 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
294 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
719 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, January 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rink Hoekstra, Richard D. Morey, Jeffrey N. Rouder, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is undoubtedly the most common inferential technique used to justify claims in the social sciences. However, even staunch defenders of NHST agree that its outcomes are often misinterpreted. Confidence intervals (CIs) have frequently been proposed as a more useful alternative to NHST, and their use is strongly encouraged in the APA Manual. Nevertheless, little is known about how researchers interpret CIs. In this study, 120 researchers and 442 students-all in the field of psychology-were asked to assess the truth value of six particular statements involving different interpretations of a CI. Although all six statements were false, both researchers and students endorsed, on average, more than three statements, indicating a gross misunderstanding of CIs. Self-declared experience with statistics was not related to researchers' performance, and, even more surprisingly, researchers hardly outperformed the students, even though the students had not received any education on statistical inference whatsoever. Our findings suggest that many researchers do not know the correct interpretation of a CI. The misunderstandings surrounding p-values and CIs are particularly unfortunate because they constitute the main tools by which psychologists draw conclusions from data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 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 719 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 16 2%
United States 14 2%
Germany 10 1%
Netherlands 6 <1%
Switzerland 6 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Other 20 3%
Unknown 636 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 178 25%
Researcher 129 18%
Student > Master 85 12%
Student > Bachelor 46 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 39 5%
Other 160 22%
Unknown 82 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 275 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 7%
Social Sciences 49 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 7%
Neuroscience 25 3%
Other 157 22%
Unknown 114 16%