How big is your P?  I'm sure Donald Trump could answer that, but I'm talking about the big news today that statisticians think that the general science/social science/pseudo-science community have been using P-values wrong and it has affected the state of scientific research and publication in general.  I'm not a statistician, but I play one in my economics classes.  I used to think I knew what a P-value was, but after reading a number of convoluted and some not-so-convoluted attempts at defining it I'm no longer sure I know what I thought I knew.  So here's my understanding of a P-value in overly simplistic form (typical for Env-Econ).  Let me know where I've gone wrong.

Suppose I have a hunch that male students at Ohio State are taller than female students on average.  But, I can't measure every student at Ohio State, so instead, I am going to use the heights of the male students and the female students in my class of 20 students to see if I can learn anything about all students at Ohio State.  First I am going to make an ass out of you and me and assume that the 20 students in my class are drawn completely at random with respect to their height from the general population of students at Ohio State.  That is, there's no correlation between the students' heights and the likelihood they will end up in my class.  Everyone in the full population of students has an equal probability of ending up in my class.  

Next, I am going to play dumb and assume that male and female students at Ohio State are the same height on average.  Under that assumption (called the null hypothesis), I would expect that the male and female students in my class are going to be roughly the same height, on average.  But because I am only drawing a small subsample from the population, I am not going to expect the null hypothesis to hold exactly with my subsample of 20 students.  Or put another way, if we were to repeatedly redraw samples of 20 students from the full population of students, we would expect to get different average heights for each subsample, but we would expect the average of the averages to be the same as the population average if we take a large enough number of subsamples.  This is called sampling variation, and it is this sampling variation that creates the need for a P-value.

Now to test the null hypothesis that male and female students are the same height on average, I calculate a t-statistic for differences in means using the data I have from my sample of 20 students.  I then calculate the corresponding P-value under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. 

So suppose I get a p-value of 0.04.  What does that mean?  The p=0.04 means that if I were to redraw 100 new random samples of 20 students from the full population of Ohio State students, I would expect that only 4 of those new samples would generate differences in means equal to or smaller than the difference between male and female heights I observe in my class*. 

So a p-value just gives us information on the likelihood that the data we observe comes from a data generating process consistent with the null hypothesis. 

Alright, now tell me what I screwed up.

*Yes, John, I'm ignoring the one-tail/two-tail issues.

Posted in
  1. David Pannell Avatar

    Your description sounds right to me. As expressed in the not-so-convoluted link, “it’s the probability of your data given your hypothesis”. That’s what you’ve said, I reckon.
    Interested in the ASA statement’s Principle No. 2: “P-values do not measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, or the probability that the data were produced by random chance alone.”
    Clearly that’s true, but it seems to me that if we use a P value at all, we use it as an indicator of whether the null hypothesis is false. It doesn’t specifically say whether the null hypothesis is false (of course), but it gives us some information that we can use to subjectively judge whether it’s false.
    To me the big issue is whether testing a null hypothesis is a sensible way to go about it. Assuming that a particular numerical hypothesis is exactly true really is a bizarre way to start trying to understand an uncertain relationship, if you think about it. I’ve never got into Bayesian stats, but it seems like I’m talking myself into having another look.

  2. jameson Avatar

    “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”
    by John Ionnidis
    at PlosMedicine.org
    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
    This Ionnidis paper gives a formula for the probability
    a published statistical relationship is wrong,
    calling it the Positive Predictive Value (PPV).
    “After a research finding has been claimed based on achieving formal statistical significance,
    the post-study probability that it is true is the positive predictive value, PPV.”
    PPV = (1 – beta) R / (R – beta * R + alpha)
    = 1 / [1 + alpha / (1 – beta) R) ]
    where
    alpha = .05 usually — the probability of a Type I error
    beta is the probability of a Type II error — (1 – beta is the power )
    R is the ratio of true relationships to no [false] relationships in that field of tests
    Writing
    R / (1-R)
    is the pre-study probability the relationship is true.
    I will call this the “Background Probability” of a true relationship.
    While the researcher/statistician can set alpha = 0.05,
    and can get beta = 0.80,
    their probability meaning is clouded by their frequentist interpretation.
    What the statistician can’t set, and what is never mentioned
    — the Background Probability — is most important in most research!
    “PPV depends a lot on the pre-study odds (R).
    Thus, research findings are more likely true in confirmatory designs
    … than in hypothesis-generating experiments.”
    This becomes obvious when research seeks from 30,000 genes
    the (at most) 30 genes that influence a genetic disease, for which
    R = 30/30000 = 0.001
    and PPV about .02.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading