IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i6p603-d515056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cavalier Use of Inferential Statistics Is a Major Source of False and Irreproducible Scientific Findings

Author

Listed:
  • Leonid Hanin

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Avenue, Stop 8085, Pocatello, ID 83209-8085, USA)

Abstract

I uncover previously underappreciated systematic sources of false and irreproducible results in natural, biomedical and social sciences that are rooted in statistical methodology. They include the inevitably occurring deviations from basic assumptions behind statistical analyses and the use of various approximations. I show through a number of examples that (a) arbitrarily small deviations from distributional homogeneity can lead to arbitrarily large deviations in the outcomes of statistical analyses; (b) samples of random size may violate the Law of Large Numbers and thus are generally unsuitable for conventional statistical inference; (c) the same is true, in particular, when random sample size and observations are stochastically dependent; and (d) the use of the Gaussian approximation based on the Central Limit Theorem has dramatic implications for p -values and statistical significance essentially making pursuit of small significance levels and p -values for a fixed sample size meaningless. The latter is proven rigorously in the case of one-sided Z test. This article could serve as a cautionary guidance to scientists and practitioners employing statistical methods in their work.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonid Hanin, 2021. "Cavalier Use of Inferential Statistics Is a Major Source of False and Irreproducible Scientific Findings," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:6:p:603-:d:515056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/6/603/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/6/603/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Steven N. Goodman, 2019. "Why is Getting Rid of P-Values So Hard? Musings on Science and Statistics," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 26-30, March.
    3. Ronchetti, Elvezio, 1990. "Small sample asymptotics: a review with applications to robust statistics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 207-223, December.
    4. Stephan Morgenthaler, 2007. "A survey of robust statistics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 15(3), pages 271-293, February.
    5. Stephan Morgenthaler, 2007. "A survey of robust statistics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 16(1), pages 171-172, June.
    6. Stephan Morgenthaler, 2007. "A survey of robust statistics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 15(3), pages 271-293, February.
    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. Sadri, Arash, 2022. "The Ultimate Cause of the “Reproducibility Crisis”: Reductionist Statistics," MetaArXiv yxba5, Center for Open Science.

    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. Roland Fried & Herold Dehling, 2011. "Robust nonparametric tests for the two-sample location problem," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 20(4), pages 409-422, November.
    2. Christophe Croux & Catherine Dehon, 2010. "Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 19(4), pages 497-515, November.
    3. Youssef Allouah & Rachid Guerraoui & L^e-Nguy^en Hoang & Oscar Villemaud, 2022. "Robust Sparse Voting," Papers 2202.08656, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    4. Eugster, Manuel J.A. & Leisch, Friedrich, 2011. "Weighted and robust archetypal analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 1215-1225, March.
    5. Cerioli, Andrea & Farcomeni, Alessio, 2011. "Error rates for multivariate outlier detection," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 544-553, January.
    6. Alfons, A. & Ates, N.Y. & Groenen, P.J.F., 2018. "A Robust Bootstrap Test for Mediation Analysis," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2018-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. repec:jss:jstsof:32:i03 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Todorov, Valentin & Filzmoser, Peter, 2009. "An Object-Oriented Framework for Robust Multivariate Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 32(i03).
    9. George Djolov, 2014. "Business concentration through the eyes of the HHI," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 7(2), pages 105-127, September.
    10. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    11. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    12. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    14. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    15. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    16. Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.
    17. Anton, Roman, 2014. "Sustainable Intrapreneurship - The GSI Concept and Strategy - Unfolding Competitive Advantage via Fair Entrepreneurship," MPRA Paper 69713, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Feb 2015.
    18. Lô, Serigne N. & Ronchetti, Elvezio, 2009. "Robust and accurate inference for generalized linear models," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(9), pages 2126-2136, October.
    19. Dudek, Thomas & Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Feld, Jan & Rohrer, Julia, 2022. "No Evidence That Siblings' Gender Affects Personality across Nine Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 15137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    21. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:6:p:603-:d:515056. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.