How doctors conceptualise 'P' values: A mixed methods study

Background and objectives: Researchers and clinicians have been criticised for frequently misinterpreting and misusing P values. This study sought to understand how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and New Zealand conceptualise P values presented in the manner typically encountered in a medi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Australian Journal of General Practice 2018-10, Vol.47 (10), p.705-710
Hauptverfasser: Tam, Chun Wah Michael, Khan, Abeer Hasan, Knight, Andrew, Rhee, Joel, Price, Karen, McLean, Katrina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and objectives: Researchers and clinicians have been criticised for frequently misinterpreting and misusing P values. This study sought to understand how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and New Zealand conceptualise P values presented in the manner typically encountered in a medical publication. Methods: This mixed-methods study used quantitative and qualitative questions embedded in an online questionnaire and delivered through an Australian and New Zealand GP-specific Facebook group in 2017. It included questions that elaborated on the participant's conceptualisation of 'P = 0.05' within a scenario and tested their P value interpretation ability and confidence. Results There were 247 participants who completed the questionnaire. Participant conceptualisations of P values were described using six thematic categories. The most common (and erroneous) conceptualisation was that P values numerically indicated a 'real-world probability'. No demographic factor, including research experience, seemed associated with better interpretation ability. A confidence - ability gap was detected. Discussion P value misunderstanding is pervasive and might be influenced by a few central misconceptions. Statistics education for clinicians should explicitly address the most common misconceptions.
ISSN:2208-7958
2208-7958
DOI:10.31128/AJGP-02-18-4502