↓ 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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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 10 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 145 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 136 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 21%
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Professor 9 6%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 11%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Computer Science 8 6%
Other 50 34%
Unknown 21 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,751,664
of 14,131,022 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#292
of 1,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,165
of 122,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,131,022 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 122,837 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 87% 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