Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing
Abstract Traditional null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) incorporating the critical level of significance of 0.05 has become the cornerstone of decision‐making in health care, and nowhere less so than in obstetric and gynecological research. However, such practice is controversial. In partic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14366 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849422721436352512 |
|---|---|
| author | Philip M. Sedgwick Anne Hammer Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel Lars Henning Pedersen |
| author_facet | Philip M. Sedgwick Anne Hammer Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel Lars Henning Pedersen |
| author_sort | Philip M. Sedgwick |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Traditional null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) incorporating the critical level of significance of 0.05 has become the cornerstone of decision‐making in health care, and nowhere less so than in obstetric and gynecological research. However, such practice is controversial. In particular, it was never intended for clinical significance to be inferred from statistical significance. The inference of clinical importance based on statistical significance (p < 0.05), and lack of clinical significance otherwise (p ≥ 0.05) represents misunderstanding of the original purpose of NHST. Furthermore, the limitations of NHST—sensitivity to sample size, plus type I and II errors—are frequently ignored. Therefore, decision‐making based on NHST has the potential for recurrent false claims about the effectiveness of interventions or importance of exposure to risk factors, or dismissal of important ones. This commentary presents the history behind NHST along with the limitations that modern‐day NHST presents, and suggests that a statistics reform regarding NHST be considered. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e75f7342d6374b93b89f8480017ac1ed |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0001-6349 1600-0412 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica |
| spelling | doaj-art-e75f7342d6374b93b89f8480017ac1ed2025-08-20T03:30:57ZengWileyActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica0001-63491600-04122022-06-01101662462710.1111/aogs.14366Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testingPhilip M. Sedgwick0Anne Hammer1Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel2Lars Henning Pedersen3Institute for Medical and Biomedical Education St George's, University of London London UKDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gødstrup Hospital Gødstrup DenmarkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Aalborg University Hospital Aalborg DenmarkDepartment of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University Aarhus DenmarkAbstract Traditional null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) incorporating the critical level of significance of 0.05 has become the cornerstone of decision‐making in health care, and nowhere less so than in obstetric and gynecological research. However, such practice is controversial. In particular, it was never intended for clinical significance to be inferred from statistical significance. The inference of clinical importance based on statistical significance (p < 0.05), and lack of clinical significance otherwise (p ≥ 0.05) represents misunderstanding of the original purpose of NHST. Furthermore, the limitations of NHST—sensitivity to sample size, plus type I and II errors—are frequently ignored. Therefore, decision‐making based on NHST has the potential for recurrent false claims about the effectiveness of interventions or importance of exposure to risk factors, or dismissal of important ones. This commentary presents the history behind NHST along with the limitations that modern‐day NHST presents, and suggests that a statistics reform regarding NHST be considered.https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14366null hypothesis significance testingstatistical significancep < 0.05clinical significance |
| spellingShingle | Philip M. Sedgwick Anne Hammer Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel Lars Henning Pedersen Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica null hypothesis significance testing statistical significance p < 0.05 clinical significance |
| title | Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing |
| title_full | Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing |
| title_fullStr | Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing |
| title_short | Current controversies: Null hypothesis significance testing |
| title_sort | current controversies null hypothesis significance testing |
| topic | null hypothesis significance testing statistical significance p < 0.05 clinical significance |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14366 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philipmsedgwick currentcontroversiesnullhypothesissignificancetesting AT annehammer currentcontroversiesnullhypothesissignificancetesting AT ulrikschiølerkesmodel currentcontroversiesnullhypothesissignificancetesting AT larshenningpedersen currentcontroversiesnullhypothesissignificancetesting |