Statalist The Stata Listserver


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: RE: RE: Significance stars


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: RE: Significance stars
Date   Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:45:49 -0000

Thanks for your testimony. Naturally, real life 
is complicated and short. I too sometimes use 
P < 0.05 as an indicator of what's worth taking
seriously, although always in combination with
other criteria. And I too sometimes compromise 
reluctantly with reviewers for the sake of getting
a paper published. 

All I can say on the last is that the Stata Journal
disapproves very mightily! 

What I find interesting is the apparent lack of 
_any_ good reason for starring. The social facts that 
many people do it and that a few people even insist on 
it are not in question. It's the rationale I seek. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Anderson, Bradley J
 
> Interesting history regarding the use of * and ** and I 
> strongly agree with your comments.  Unfortunately, many 
> editors and reviewers regard a certain level of Type I error 
> (usually < .05) as a sacred criterion that defines what's 
> important, and what's not important.  And what gets published 
> and what does not get published.  Indeed, I've had editors 
> who have required us to remove p-values and confidence 
> intervals in favor of * and **.
 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index