IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v185y2022i1p329-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trustworthiness of statistical inference

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Hand

Abstract

We examine the role of trustworthiness and trust in statistical inference, arguing that it is the extent of trustworthiness in inferential statistical tools which enables trust in the conclusions. Certain tools, such as the p‐value and significance test, have recently come under renewed criticism, with some arguing that they damage trust in statistics. We argue the contrary, beginning from the position that the central role of these methods is to form the basis for trusted conclusions in the face of uncertainty in the data, and noting that it is the misuse and misunderstanding of these tools which damages trustworthiness and hence trust. We go on to argue that recent calls to ban these tools tackle the symptom, not the cause, and themselves risk damaging the capability of science to advance, as well as risking feeding into public suspicion of the discipline of statistics. The consequence could be aggravated mistrust of our discipline and of science more generally. In short, the very proposals could work in quite the contrary direction from that intended. We make some alternative proposals for tackling the misuse and misunderstanding of these methods, and for how trust in our discipline might be promoted.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:1:p:329-347
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12752
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12752?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal, 2017. "Rejoinder: Statistical Significance and the Dichotomization of Evidence," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 904-908, July.
    2. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    3. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal & Andrew Gelman & Christian Robert & Jennifer L. Tackett, 2019. "Abandon Statistical Significance," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 235-245, March.
    4. Spanos, Aris, 2010. "Statistical adequacy and the trustworthiness of empirical evidence: Statistical vs. substantive information," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1436-1452, November.
    5. David J. Hand, 1994. "Deconstructing Statistical Questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 157(3), pages 317-338, May.
    6. Nancy Reid & David R. Cox, 2015. "On Some Principles of Statistical Inference," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 83(2), pages 293-308, August.
    7. David Trafimow, 2019. "Five Nonobvious Changes in Editorial Practice for Editors and Reviewers to Consider When Evaluating Submissions in a Post p," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 340-345, March.
    8. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Allen L. Schirm & Nicole A. Lazar, 2019. "Moving to a World Beyond “p," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Hirschauer Norbert & Grüner Sven & Mußhoff Oliver & Becker Claudia, 2019. "Twenty Steps Towards an Adequate Inferential Interpretation of p-Values in Econometrics," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(4), pages 703-721, August.
    10. Andrew Gelman & John Carlin, 2017. "Some Natural Solutions to the -Value Communication Problem—and Why They Won’t Work," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 899-901, July.
    11. David J. Hand, 2012. "Assessing the Performance of Classification Methods," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 80(3), pages 400-414, December.
    12. Ronald D. Fricker & Katherine Burke & Xiaoyan Han & William H. Woodall, 2019. "Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p-Value Ban," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 374-384, March.
    13. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal, 2017. "Statistical Significance and the Dichotomization of Evidence," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 885-895, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eleni Verykouki & Christos T. Nakas, 2023. "Adaptations on the Use of p -Values for Statistical Inference: An Interpretation of Messages from Recent Public Discussions," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-13, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hirschauer, Norbert & Grüner, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Claudia & Jantsch, Antje, 2020. "Can p-values be meaningfully interpreted without random sampling?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14, pages 71-91.
    2. Jeffrey A. Mills & Gary Cornwall & Beau A. Sauley & Jeffrey R. Strawn, 2018. "Improving the Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: a Posterior Simulation Approach," BEA Working Papers 0157, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    3. Glenn Shafer, 2021. "Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(2), pages 407-431, April.
    4. Hirschauer Norbert & Grüner Sven & Mußhoff Oliver & Becker Claudia, 2019. "Twenty Steps Towards an Adequate Inferential Interpretation of p-Values in Econometrics," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(4), pages 703-721, August.
    5. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    6. Bertoldi, Paolo & Mosconi, Rocco, 2020. "Do energy efficiency policies save energy? A new approach based on energy policy indicators (in the EU Member States)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Maier, Maximilian & VanderWeele, Tyler & Mathur, Maya B, 2021. "Using Selection Models to Assess Sensitivity to Publication Bias: A Tutorial and Call for More Routine Use," MetaArXiv tp45u, Center for Open Science.
    8. Anderson, Brian S. & Wennberg, Karl & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2019. "Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    9. Wennberg, Karl & Anderson, Brian S. & McMullen, Jeffrey, 2019. "2 Editorial: Enhancing Quantitative Theory-Testing Entrepreneurship Research," Ratio Working Papers 323, The Ratio Institute.
    10. Maya B. Mathur & Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2020. "Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1091-1119, November.
    11. Heckelei, Thomas & Huettel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Rommel, Jens, 2021. "The replicability crisis and the p-value debate – what are the consequences for the agricultural and food economics community?," Discussion Papers 316369, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    13. Anderson, Brian S., 2022. "What executives get wrong about statistics: Moving from statistical significance to effect sizes and practical impact," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 379-388.
    14. J. M. Bauer & L. A. Reisch, 2019. "Behavioural Insights and (Un)healthy Dietary Choices: a Review of Current Evidence," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 3-45, March.
    15. Hirschauer, Norbert & Grüner, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Claudia, 2020. "Inference in economic experiments," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-14.
    16. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    17. Han Wang & Sieglinde S Snapp & Monica Fisher & Frederi Viens, 2019. "A Bayesian analysis of longitudinal farm surveys in Central Malawi reveals yield determinants and site-specific management strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Luigi Pace & Alessandra Salvan, 2020. "Likelihood, Replicability and Robbins' Confidence Sequences," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 88(3), pages 599-615, December.
    19. Maximilian Maier & Tyler J. VanderWeele & Maya B. Mathur, 2022. "Using selection models to assess sensitivity to publication bias: A tutorial and call for more routine use," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), September.
    20. Rigdon, Edward E., 2023. "How improper dichotomization and the misrepresentation of uncertainty undermine social science research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:1:p:329-347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.