Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Forsooth==
==Think the Answer Clear? Look Again==
The following Forsooth is from the August 23, 2010 RRS News.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/science/31profile.html?ref==%20scienceNews%20New%20York%20Times%20 The New York Times]
An [http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/101/23/NP editorial] was published in the ''Journal of the National Cancer Institute'' (Volume 101, no 23, 2 December 2009). It announced some online resources for journalists, including a [http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnc/resource/statistics%20glossary.pdf statistics glossary], which gave the following definitions:
 
<UL>
<li>'''P value.''' probability that an observed effect size is
due to chance alone.
<p>if p &ge; 0.05, we say 'due to chance', 'not statistically significant'</p>
<p>if p < 05, we say 'not due to chance', 'statistically significant'</p>
 
<li>'''Confidence interval''' (95% CI)
 
<p>Because the observed value is only an estimate of the truth, we know it has a 'margin of error'</p>
<p>The range of plausible values around the observed value that will contain the truth 95% of the time</p>
</UL>         
The journal subsequently (vol. 102, no. 11, 2 June 2010) published a letter commenting on the editorial and the statistics glossary. The authors of the original editorial replied as follows:
<blockquote>
<p>Dr Lash correctly points out that the descriptions of p values and 95% confidence intervals do not meet the
formal frequentist statistical definitions.</p>
 
<p>[…] We were not convinced that working journalists would find these definitions
user-friendly, so we sacrificed precision for utility.</p>
</blockquote>

Revision as of 14:15, 3 September 2010

Think the Answer Clear? Look Again

The New York Times

Retrieved from "https://www.causeweb.org/wiki/chance/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=11036"