Skip to main content
placeholder image

How doctors conceptualise P values: a mixed methods study

Journal Article


Abstract


  • 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.

UOW Authors


  •   Tam, Chun Wah Michael. (external author)
  •   Khan, Abeer Hasan (external author)
  •   Knight, Andrew (external author)
  •   Rhee, Joel
  •   Price, Karen (external author)
  •   McLean, Katrina (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2018

Citation


  • Tam, C. Wah Michael., Khan, A., Knight, A., Rhee, J., Price, K. & McLean, K. (2018). How doctors conceptualise P values: a mixed methods study. Australian Journal of General Practice, 47 (10), 705-710.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers1/409

Number Of Pages


  • 5

Start Page


  • 705

End Page


  • 710

Volume


  • 47

Issue


  • 10

Place Of Publication


  • Melbourne, Australia

Abstract


  • 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.

UOW Authors


  •   Tam, Chun Wah Michael. (external author)
  •   Khan, Abeer Hasan (external author)
  •   Knight, Andrew (external author)
  •   Rhee, Joel
  •   Price, Karen (external author)
  •   McLean, Katrina (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2018

Citation


  • Tam, C. Wah Michael., Khan, A., Knight, A., Rhee, J., Price, K. & McLean, K. (2018). How doctors conceptualise P values: a mixed methods study. Australian Journal of General Practice, 47 (10), 705-710.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers1/409

Number Of Pages


  • 5

Start Page


  • 705

End Page


  • 710

Volume


  • 47

Issue


  • 10

Place Of Publication


  • Melbourne, Australia