↓ 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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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 13 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Norway 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 167 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 20%
Student > Master 29 16%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Professor 10 6%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 10%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Psychology 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Other 60 34%
Unknown 30 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,308,029
of 15,364,714 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#219
of 1,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,265
of 127,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,364,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 127,046 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them