IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-0-387-46212-7_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

One-Sided Versus Two-Sided Testing

In: Statistical Reasoning in Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Lemuel A. Moyé

    (University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health)

Abstract

8.11 Conclusions I believe one-sided (benefit only) testing reflects a mindset of physicians and healthcare researchers who believe their intervention can produce no harm, a philosophy that has been shown repeatedly to be faulty, and dangerous to patients and their families. Investigators who agree to the one-sided (benefit only) approach to significance testing in a clinical experiment have closed parts of their minds to the possibility of harm entering into an avoidable flirtation with danger. In this sense, the one-sided test is not the disease, it is only a symptom. We as physicians and healthcare workers feel strongly about the treatment programs we advocate. This is required in our profession. However, these strong feelings often betray us since our day-to-day experience does not provide an objective view of the treatments. We need every tool we can find to help us gain that objective vantage point. The use of a two-sided significance test is of utmost importance. A forceful, intelligent argument for ethics will argue not only for a two-sided test, but asymmetrical allocation of alpha. Prospective identification of alpha is again critical here, and community protection predominates all other concerns. A sensitive, perceptive, ethical approach to alpha allocation for sidedness can complicate experimental design, but complexity in the name of ethics is no vice.

Suggested Citation

  • Lemuel A. Moyé, 2006. "One-Sided Versus Two-Sided Testing," Springer Books, in: Statistical Reasoning in Medicine, edition 0, chapter 8, pages 167-180, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-0-387-46212-7_9
    DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-46212-7_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:sprchp:978-0-387-46212-7_9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.