Cargando…
Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research
How statistically non-significant results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticized. This issue is important for animal cognition research because studies in the field are often underpowered to detect theoretically meaningful effect sizes, i.e.,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10008313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36919170 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14963 |
_version_ | 1784905729960837120 |
---|---|
author | Farrar, Benjamin G. Vernouillet, Alizée Garcia-Pelegrin, Elias Legg, Edward W. Brecht, Katharina F. Lambert, Poppy J. Elsherif, Mahmoud Francis, Shannon O’Neill, Laurie Clayton, Nicola S. Ostojić, Ljerka |
author_facet | Farrar, Benjamin G. Vernouillet, Alizée Garcia-Pelegrin, Elias Legg, Edward W. Brecht, Katharina F. Lambert, Poppy J. Elsherif, Mahmoud Francis, Shannon O’Neill, Laurie Clayton, Nicola S. Ostojić, Ljerka |
author_sort | Farrar, Benjamin G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | How statistically non-significant results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticized. This issue is important for animal cognition research because studies in the field are often underpowered to detect theoretically meaningful effect sizes, i.e., often produce non-significant p-values even when the null hypothesis is incorrect. Thus, we manually extracted and classified how researchers report and interpret non-significant p-values and examined the p-value distribution of these non-significant results across published articles in animal cognition and related fields. We found a large amount of heterogeneity in how researchers report statistically non-significant p-values in the result sections of articles, and how they interpret them in the titles and abstracts. Reporting of the non-significant results as “No Effect” was common in the titles (84%), abstracts (64%), and results sections (41%) of papers, whereas reporting of the results as “Non-Significant” was less common in the titles (0%) and abstracts (26%), but was present in the results (52%). Discussions of effect sizes were rare (<5% of articles). A p-value distribution analysis was consistent with research being performed with low power of statistical tests to detect effect sizes of interest. These findings suggest that researchers in animal cognition should pay close attention to the evidence used to support claims of absence of effects in the literature, and—in their own work—report statistically non-significant results clearly and formally correct, as well as use more formal methods of assessing evidence against theoretical predictions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10008313 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100083132023-03-13 Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research Farrar, Benjamin G. Vernouillet, Alizée Garcia-Pelegrin, Elias Legg, Edward W. Brecht, Katharina F. Lambert, Poppy J. Elsherif, Mahmoud Francis, Shannon O’Neill, Laurie Clayton, Nicola S. Ostojić, Ljerka PeerJ Animal Behavior How statistically non-significant results are reported and interpreted following null hypothesis significance testing is often criticized. This issue is important for animal cognition research because studies in the field are often underpowered to detect theoretically meaningful effect sizes, i.e., often produce non-significant p-values even when the null hypothesis is incorrect. Thus, we manually extracted and classified how researchers report and interpret non-significant p-values and examined the p-value distribution of these non-significant results across published articles in animal cognition and related fields. We found a large amount of heterogeneity in how researchers report statistically non-significant p-values in the result sections of articles, and how they interpret them in the titles and abstracts. Reporting of the non-significant results as “No Effect” was common in the titles (84%), abstracts (64%), and results sections (41%) of papers, whereas reporting of the results as “Non-Significant” was less common in the titles (0%) and abstracts (26%), but was present in the results (52%). Discussions of effect sizes were rare (<5% of articles). A p-value distribution analysis was consistent with research being performed with low power of statistical tests to detect effect sizes of interest. These findings suggest that researchers in animal cognition should pay close attention to the evidence used to support claims of absence of effects in the literature, and—in their own work—report statistically non-significant results clearly and formally correct, as well as use more formal methods of assessing evidence against theoretical predictions. PeerJ Inc. 2023-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10008313/ /pubmed/36919170 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14963 Text en ©2023 Farrar et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Animal Behavior Farrar, Benjamin G. Vernouillet, Alizée Garcia-Pelegrin, Elias Legg, Edward W. Brecht, Katharina F. Lambert, Poppy J. Elsherif, Mahmoud Francis, Shannon O’Neill, Laurie Clayton, Nicola S. Ostojić, Ljerka Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title | Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title_full | Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title_fullStr | Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title_short | Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
title_sort | reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research |
topic | Animal Behavior |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10008313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36919170 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14963 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farrarbenjaming reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT vernouilletalizee reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT garciapelegrinelias reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT leggedwardw reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT brechtkatharinaf reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT lambertpoppyj reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT elsherifmahmoud reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT francisshannon reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT oneilllaurie reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT claytonnicolas reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch AT ostojicljerka reportingandinterpretingnonsignificantresultsinanimalcognitionresearch |