null hypothesis meaning medical

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions & Examples

Null & Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions, Templates & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on June 22, 2023.

The null and alternative hypotheses are two competing claims that researchers weigh evidence for and against using a statistical test :

• Null hypothesis ( H 0 ): There’s no effect in the population .
• Alternative hypothesis ( H a or H 1 ) : There’s an effect in the population.

Table of contents

Answering your research question with hypotheses, what is a null hypothesis, what is an alternative hypothesis, similarities and differences between null and alternative hypotheses, how to write null and alternative hypotheses, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

The null and alternative hypotheses offer competing answers to your research question . When the research question asks “Does the independent variable affect the dependent variable?”:

• The null hypothesis ( H 0 ) answers “No, there’s no effect in the population.”
• The alternative hypothesis ( H a ) answers “Yes, there is an effect in the population.”

The null and alternative are always claims about the population. That’s because the goal of hypothesis testing is to make inferences about a population based on a sample . Often, we infer whether there’s an effect in the population by looking at differences between groups or relationships between variables in the sample. It’s critical for your research to write strong hypotheses .

You can use a statistical test to decide whether the evidence favors the null or alternative hypothesis. Each type of statistical test comes with a specific way of phrasing the null and alternative hypothesis. However, the hypotheses can also be phrased in a general way that applies to any test.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

The null hypothesis is the claim that there’s no effect in the population.

If the sample provides enough evidence against the claim that there’s no effect in the population ( p ≤ α), then we can reject the null hypothesis . Otherwise, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Although “fail to reject” may sound awkward, it’s the only wording that statisticians accept . Be careful not to say you “prove” or “accept” the null hypothesis.

Null hypotheses often include phrases such as “no effect,” “no difference,” or “no relationship.” When written in mathematical terms, they always include an equality (usually =, but sometimes ≥ or ≤).

You can never know with complete certainty whether there is an effect in the population. Some percentage of the time, your inference about the population will be incorrect. When you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis, it’s called a type I error . When you incorrectly fail to reject it, it’s a type II error.

Examples of null hypotheses

The table below gives examples of research questions and null hypotheses. There’s always more than one way to answer a research question, but these null hypotheses can help you get started.

*Note that some researchers prefer to always write the null hypothesis in terms of “no effect” and “=”. It would be fine to say that daily meditation has no effect on the incidence of depression and p 1 = p 2 .

The alternative hypothesis ( H a ) is the other answer to your research question . It claims that there’s an effect in the population.

Often, your alternative hypothesis is the same as your research hypothesis. In other words, it’s the claim that you expect or hope will be true.

The alternative hypothesis is the complement to the null hypothesis. Null and alternative hypotheses are exhaustive, meaning that together they cover every possible outcome. They are also mutually exclusive, meaning that only one can be true at a time.

Alternative hypotheses often include phrases such as “an effect,” “a difference,” or “a relationship.” When alternative hypotheses are written in mathematical terms, they always include an inequality (usually ≠, but sometimes < or >). As with null hypotheses, there are many acceptable ways to phrase an alternative hypothesis.

Examples of alternative hypotheses

The table below gives examples of research questions and alternative hypotheses to help you get started with formulating your own.

Null and alternative hypotheses are similar in some ways:

• They’re both answers to the research question.
• They both make claims about the population.
• They’re both evaluated by statistical tests.

However, there are important differences between the two types of hypotheses, summarized in the following table.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To help you write your hypotheses, you can use the template sentences below. If you know which statistical test you’re going to use, you can use the test-specific template sentences. Otherwise, you can use the general template sentences.

General template sentences

The only thing you need to know to use these general template sentences are your dependent and independent variables. To write your research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, fill in the following sentences with your variables:

Does independent variable affect dependent variable ?

• Null hypothesis ( H 0 ): Independent variable does not affect dependent variable.
• Alternative hypothesis ( H a ): Independent variable affects dependent variable.

Test-specific template sentences

Once you know the statistical test you’ll be using, you can write your hypotheses in a more precise and mathematical way specific to the test you chose. The table below provides template sentences for common statistical tests.

Note: The template sentences above assume that you’re performing one-tailed tests . One-tailed tests are appropriate for most studies.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

The null hypothesis is often abbreviated as H 0 . When the null hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an equality symbol (usually =, but sometimes ≥ or ≤).

The alternative hypothesis is often abbreviated as H a or H 1 . When the alternative hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an inequality symbol (usually ≠, but sometimes < or >).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, June 22). Null & Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions, Templates & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/null-and-alternative-hypotheses/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, inferential statistics | an easy introduction & examples, hypothesis testing | a step-by-step guide with easy examples, type i & type ii errors | differences, examples, visualizations, what is your plagiarism score.

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Null Hypothesis: Definition, Rejecting & Examples

By Jim Frost 6 Comments

What is a Null Hypothesis?

The null hypothesis in statistics states that there is no difference between groups or no relationship between variables. It is one of two mutually exclusive hypotheses about a population in a hypothesis test.

• Null Hypothesis H 0 : No effect exists in the population.
• Alternative Hypothesis H A : The effect exists in the population.

In every study or experiment, researchers assess an effect or relationship. This effect can be the effectiveness of a new drug, building material, or other intervention that has benefits. There is a benefit or connection that the researchers hope to identify. Unfortunately, no effect may exist. In statistics, we call this lack of an effect the null hypothesis. Researchers assume that this notion of no effect is correct until they have enough evidence to suggest otherwise, similar to how a trial presumes innocence.

In this context, the analysts don’t necessarily believe the null hypothesis is correct. In fact, they typically want to reject it because that leads to more exciting finds about an effect or relationship. The new vaccine works!

You can think of it as the default theory that requires sufficiently strong evidence to reject. Like a prosecutor, researchers must collect sufficient evidence to overturn the presumption of no effect. Investigators must work hard to set up a study and a data collection system to obtain evidence that can reject the null hypothesis.

Related post : What is an Effect in Statistics?

Null Hypothesis Examples

Null hypotheses start as research questions that the investigator rephrases as a statement indicating there is no effect or relationship.

After reading these examples, you might think they’re a bit boring and pointless. However, the key is to remember that the null hypothesis defines the condition that the researchers need to discredit before suggesting an effect exists.

Let’s see how you reject the null hypothesis and get to those more exciting findings!

When to Reject the Null Hypothesis

So, you want to reject the null hypothesis, but how and when can you do that? To start, you’ll need to perform a statistical test on your data. The following is an overview of performing a study that uses a hypothesis test.

The first step is to devise a research question and the appropriate null hypothesis. After that, the investigators need to formulate an experimental design and data collection procedures that will allow them to gather data that can answer the research question. Then they collect the data. For more information about designing a scientific study that uses statistics, read my post 5 Steps for Conducting Studies with Statistics .

After data collection is complete, statistics and hypothesis testing enter the picture. Hypothesis testing takes your sample data and evaluates how consistent they are with the null hypothesis. The p-value is a crucial part of the statistical results because it quantifies how strongly the sample data contradict the null hypothesis.

When the sample data provide sufficient evidence, you can reject the null hypothesis. In a hypothesis test, this process involves comparing the p-value to your significance level .

Rejecting the Null Hypothesis

Reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than or equal to your significance level. Your sample data favor the alternative hypothesis, which suggests that the effect exists in the population. For a mnemonic device, remember—when the p-value is low, the null must go!

When you can reject the null hypothesis, your results are statistically significant. Learn more about Statistical Significance: Definition & Meaning .

Failing to Reject the Null Hypothesis

Conversely, when the p-value is greater than your significance level, you fail to reject the null hypothesis. The sample data provides insufficient data to conclude that the effect exists in the population. When the p-value is high, the null must fly!

Note that failing to reject the null is not the same as proving it. For more information about the difference, read my post about Failing to Reject the Null .

That’s a very general look at the process. But I hope you can see how the path to more exciting findings depends on being able to rule out the less exciting null hypothesis that states there’s nothing to see here!

Let’s move on to learning how to write the null hypothesis for different types of effects, relationships, and tests.

Related posts : How Hypothesis Tests Work and Interpreting P-values

How to Write a Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis varies by the type of statistic and hypothesis test. Remember that inferential statistics use samples to draw conclusions about populations. Consequently, when you write a null hypothesis, it must make a claim about the relevant population parameter . Further, that claim usually indicates that the effect does not exist in the population. Below are typical examples of writing a null hypothesis for various parameters and hypothesis tests.

Related posts : Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics and Populations, Parameters, and Samples in Inferential Statistics

Group Means

T-tests and ANOVA assess the differences between group means. For these tests, the null hypothesis states that there is no difference between group means in the population. In other words, the experimental conditions that define the groups do not affect the mean outcome. Mu (µ) is the population parameter for the mean, and you’ll need to include it in the statement for this type of study.

For example, an experiment compares the mean bone density changes for a new osteoporosis medication. The control group does not receive the medicine, while the treatment group does. The null states that the mean bone density changes for the control and treatment groups are equal.

• Null Hypothesis H 0 : Group means are equal in the population: µ 1 = µ 2 , or µ 1 – µ 2 = 0
• Alternative Hypothesis H A : Group means are not equal in the population: µ 1 ≠ µ 2 , or µ 1 – µ 2 ≠ 0.

Group Proportions

Proportions tests assess the differences between group proportions. For these tests, the null hypothesis states that there is no difference between group proportions. Again, the experimental conditions did not affect the proportion of events in the groups. P is the population proportion parameter that you’ll need to include.

For example, a vaccine experiment compares the infection rate in the treatment group to the control group. The treatment group receives the vaccine, while the control group does not. The null states that the infection rates for the control and treatment groups are equal.

• Null Hypothesis H 0 : Group proportions are equal in the population: p 1 = p 2 .
• Alternative Hypothesis H A : Group proportions are not equal in the population: p 1 ≠ p 2 .

Correlation and Regression Coefficients

Some studies assess the relationship between two continuous variables rather than differences between groups.

In these studies, analysts often use either correlation or regression analysis . For these tests, the null states that there is no relationship between the variables. Specifically, it says that the correlation or regression coefficient is zero. As one variable increases, there is no tendency for the other variable to increase or decrease. Rho (ρ) is the population correlation parameter and beta (β) is the regression coefficient parameter.

For example, a study assesses the relationship between screen time and test performance. The null states that there is no correlation between this pair of variables. As screen time increases, test performance does not tend to increase or decrease.

• Null Hypothesis H 0 : The correlation in the population is zero: ρ = 0.
• Alternative Hypothesis H A : The correlation in the population is not zero: ρ ≠ 0.

For all these cases, the analysts define the hypotheses before the study. After collecting the data, they perform a hypothesis test to determine whether they can reject the null hypothesis.

The preceding examples are all for two-tailed hypothesis tests. To learn about one-tailed tests and how to write a null hypothesis for them, read my post One-Tailed vs. Two-Tailed Tests .

Related post : Understanding Correlation

Neyman, J; Pearson, E. S. (January 1, 1933).  On the Problem of the most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses .  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A .  231  (694–706): 289–337.

Share this:

Reader Interactions

January 11, 2024 at 2:57 pm

Thanks for the reply.

January 10, 2024 at 1:23 pm

Hi Jim, In your comment you state that equivalence test null and alternate hypotheses are reversed. For hypothesis tests of data fits to a probability distribution, the null hypothesis is that the probability distribution fits the data. Is this correct?

January 10, 2024 at 2:15 pm

Those two separate things, equivalence testing and normality tests. But, yes, you’re correct for both.

Hypotheses are switched for equivalence testing. You need to “work” (i.e., collect a large sample of good quality data) to be able to reject the null that the groups are different to be able to conclude they’re the same.

With typical hypothesis tests, if you have low quality data and a low sample size, you’ll fail to reject the null that they’re the same, concluding they’re equivalent. But that’s more a statement about the low quality and small sample size than anything to do with the groups being equal.

So, equivalence testing make you work to obtain a finding that the groups are the same (at least within some amount you define as a trivial difference).

For normality testing, and other distribution tests, the null states that the data follow the distribution (normal or whatever). If you reject the null, you have sufficient evidence to conclude that your sample data don’t follow the probability distribution. That’s a rare case where you hope to fail to reject the null. And it suffers from the problem I describe above where you might fail to reject the null simply because you have a small sample size. In that case, you’d conclude the data follow the probability distribution but it’s more that you don’t have enough data for the test to register the deviation. In this scenario, if you had a larger sample size, you’d reject the null and conclude it doesn’t follow that distribution.

I don’t know of any equivalence testing type approach for distribution fit tests where you’d need to work to show the data follow a distribution, although I haven’t looked for one either!

February 20, 2022 at 9:26 pm

Is a null hypothesis regularly (always) stated in the negative? “there is no” or “does not”

February 23, 2022 at 9:21 pm

Typically, the null hypothesis includes an equal sign. The null hypothesis states that the population parameter equals a particular value. That value is usually one that represents no effect. In the case of a one-sided hypothesis test, the null still contains an equal sign but it’s “greater than or equal to” or “less than or equal to.” If you wanted to translate the null hypothesis from its native mathematical expression, you could use the expression “there is no effect.” But the mathematical form more specifically states what it’s testing.

It’s the alternative hypothesis that typically contains does not equal.

There are some exceptions. For example, in an equivalence test where the researchers want to show that two things are equal, the null hypothesis states that they’re not equal.

In short, the null hypothesis states the condition that the researchers hope to reject. They need to work hard to set up an experiment and data collection that’ll gather enough evidence to be able to reject the null condition.

February 15, 2022 at 9:32 am

Dear sir I always read your notes on Research methods.. Kindly tell is there any available Book on all these..wonderfull Urgent

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

I want to publish

To find out how to publish or submit your book proposal:

To find a journal or submit your article to a journal:

• Null Hypothesis
• Medicine and Healthcare
• Medical Statistics & Computing

Single Best Answer Questions

Vivian A. Elwell, Jonathan M. Fishman, Rajat Chowdhury in SBAs for the MRCS Part A , 2018

Concerning statistical analysis, which statement below is true?A Type I error accepts the false null hypothesis (e.g., false negative). A benefit is missed when it was there to be found.A Type II error is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis (e.g., false positive). A benefit is perceived when really there is none.A Null hypothesis is a statement of no significant difference or effect.Specificity (true negative rate) measures the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such (e.g., the percentage of people with a disease who are correctly identified as having the disease).Sensitivity (true positive rate) measures the proportion of negatives that are correctly identified as such (e.g., the percentage of healthy individuals who are correctly identified as not having the disease).

Introduction to the management station

Sukhpreet Singh Dubb in Core Surgical Training Interviews , 2020

The null hypothesis is the focus for statistical tests to disprove in a research study. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the two groups a researcher is investigating. If the groups were comparing rates the null hypothesis would imply that the rate of group A is equal to group B, that is 1. In a case-control study, the odds ratio in group A would equal group B, again equalling 1. This is why in a confidence interval for relative risk or odds ratio, the null hypothesis can be rejected if the interval does not include 1. For explicit variables such blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the null hypothesis would state that the value in group A is equal to the value in group B, hence A − B = 0. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected if the confidence interval does not include 0.

Basic Review of Parametric Statistics

Daryl S. Paulson in Applied Statistical Designs for the Researcher , 2003

Collecting valid data to provide evidence for or against the null hypothesis is crucial in statistical inference. When the evidence one collects comes from a representative sample of a larger (often much larger) group called the “population,” one can conclude that results seen in the sample-based study would hold true for the entire population. In the polio example, the researchers concluded that the Salk vaccine was effective in reducing the incidence of polio among the children who were vaccinated. Because the sample of children studied was representative of children nationwide, they were also able to conclude that, if children nationwide were given the Salk vaccine, the incidence of polio in the United States would drop significantly. And it did; because of routine vaccination, polio is now a very rare disease in industrialized countries.

Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox

Published in Temperature , 2019

Aaron R. Caldwell, Samuel N. Cheuvront

Currently, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the predominate approach to inference in most scientific fields. In particular, environmental and occupational physiologists, whether they realize it or not, rely upon NHST which in large part is based on Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson’s framework for inference [10–12]. In this paradigm, the data are collected and then the scientist must decide between two competing hypotheses: the null and the alternative. In essence, we collect a sample (a group of participants) from a population (the group that the researcher is trying to study), assuming we are interested in detecting a relationship or difference of at least a certain magnitude. After the data are collected, researchers use statistical test(s) to see if the observed difference or relationship is common, assuming the null hypothesis is true. In many cases, the null hypothesis is a statement that no difference or relationship exists (i.e., nil hypothesis). However, the null hypothesis can take the form of a variety of statements. For example, a null hypothesis could be that cold-water immersion does not cool a heat-stroke patient at least 0.05 °C/min faster than ice-sheet cooling (i.e., a minimum effect hypothesis).

Effect of selective attention on auditory brainstem response

Published in Hearing, Balance and Communication , 2023

Sathish Kumar, Srikanth Nayak, Arivudai Nambi Pitchai Muthu

The data was collected from 16 subjects to test our hypothesis using three experimental conditions: active listening, passive listening with visual distracter and passive listening with the visual task. Two participants’ data were rejected in all the conditions due to the noisy EEG. We reported results using Bayesian statistics, in which the likelihoods of the null and alternative hypotheses were calculated. In our study, the null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the conditions, while the alternative hypothesis states that there is a difference. The Bayes Factor (BF) reported in the study quantifies the creditability of the hypothesis for given data. The BF10 value of more than 1 favours the alternative hypothesis, while less than 1 favours the null hypothesis. BF10 value represents the strength of evidence wherein, greater the BF10 value stronger the evidence favouring the alternative hypothesis [39].

Hypothesis-generating and confirmatory studies, Bonferroni correction, and pre-specification of trial endpoints

Published in Acta Orthopaedica , 2019

Jonas Ranstam

A p-value presents the outcome of a statistically tested null hypothesis. It indicates how incompatible observed data are with a statistical model defined by a null hypothesis. This hypothesis can, for example, be that 2 parameters have identical values, or that they differ by a specified amount. A low p-value shows that it is unlikely (a high p-value that it is not unlikely) that the observed data are consistent with the null hypothesis. Many null hypotheses are tested in order to generate study hypotheses for further research, others to confirm an already established study hypothesis. The difference between generating and confirming a hypothesis is crucial for the interpretation of the results. Presenting an outcome from a hypothesis-generating study as if it had been produced in a confirmatory study is misleading and represents methodological ignorance or scientific misconduct.

Related Knowledge Centers

• Bayes Factor
• Statistical Hypothesis Testing
• Statistical Inference
• Alternative Hypothesis
• Statistical Significance
• Lady Tasting Tea
• Test Statistic
• Homogeneity & Heterogeneity
• Testing Hypotheses Suggested By The Data

Current Research

• Clinical Trials (United States)
• Clinical Trials (Europe)
• Clinical Trials (Australia/New Zealand)
• Clinical Trials (India)

Knowledge is an evolving asset. Help us improve this page for a future release.

9.1 Null and Alternative Hypotheses

The actual test begins by considering two hypotheses . They are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.

H 0 , the — null hypothesis: a statement of no difference between sample means or proportions or no difference between a sample mean or proportion and a population mean or proportion. In other words, the difference equals 0.

H a —, the alternative hypothesis: a claim about the population that is contradictory to H 0 and what we conclude when we reject H 0 .

Since the null and alternative hypotheses are contradictory, you must examine evidence to decide if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or not. The evidence is in the form of sample data.

After you have determined which hypothesis the sample supports, you make a decision. There are two options for a decision. They are reject H 0 if the sample information favors the alternative hypothesis or do not reject H 0 or decline to reject H 0 if the sample information is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis.

Mathematical Symbols Used in H 0 and H a :

H 0 always has a symbol with an equal in it. H a never has a symbol with an equal in it. The choice of symbol depends on the wording of the hypothesis test. However, be aware that many researchers use = in the null hypothesis, even with > or < as the symbol in the alternative hypothesis. This practice is acceptable because we only make the decision to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

Example 9.1

H 0 : No more than 30 percent of the registered voters in Santa Clara County voted in the primary election. p ≤ 30 H a : More than 30 percent of the registered voters in Santa Clara County voted in the primary election. p > 30

A medical trial is conducted to test whether or not a new medicine reduces cholesterol by 25 percent. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

Example 9.2

We want to test whether the mean GPA of students in American colleges is different from 2.0 (out of 4.0). The null and alternative hypotheses are the following: H 0 : μ = 2.0 H a : μ ≠ 2.0

We want to test whether the mean height of eighth graders is 66 inches. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : μ __ 66
• H a : μ __ 66

Example 9.3

We want to test if college students take fewer than five years to graduate from college, on the average. The null and alternative hypotheses are the following: H 0 : μ ≥ 5 H a : μ < 5

We want to test if it takes fewer than 45 minutes to teach a lesson plan. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol ( =, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : μ __ 45
• H a : μ __ 45

Example 9.4

An article on school standards stated that about half of all students in France, Germany, and Israel take advanced placement exams and a third of the students pass. The same article stated that 6.6 percent of U.S. students take advanced placement exams and 4.4 percent pass. Test if the percentage of U.S. students who take advanced placement exams is more than 6.6 percent. State the null and alternative hypotheses. H 0 : p ≤ 0.066 H a : p > 0.066

On a state driver’s test, about 40 percent pass the test on the first try. We want to test if more than 40 percent pass on the first try. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : p __ 0.40
• H a : p __ 0.40

Collaborative Exercise

Bring to class a newspaper, some news magazines, and some internet articles. In groups, find articles from which your group can write null and alternative hypotheses. Discuss your hypotheses with the rest of the class.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute Texas Education Agency (TEA). The original material is available at: https://www.texasgateway.org/book/tea-statistics . Changes were made to the original material, including updates to art, structure, and other content updates.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/statistics/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Statistics
• Publication date: Mar 27, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/statistics/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/statistics/pages/9-1-null-and-alternative-hypotheses

© Apr 16, 2024 Texas Education Agency (TEA). The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Course Home
• Correlates, Conditions, Care, and Costs
• Knowledge Check
• Dependent and Independent Variables
• Correlation
• Age-Adjustment
• Distribution
• Standard Deviation
• Significance Level
• Confidence Intervals
• Incorporation into Health Subjects
• Medical Records
• Claims Data
• Vital Records
• Surveillance
• Grey Literature
• Peer-Reviewed Literature
• National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
• Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
• United States Census Bureau
• HealthData.gov
• Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (DAHC)
• Academic Journal Databases
• Search Engines

How to Navigate This Course

There are a variety of ways you can navigate this course. You can:

• Click the Prev and Next buttons at the bottom of each page to move through the material.
• Use the main navigation with dropdown subsections featured on all pages.
• Use a combination of the above methods to explore the course contents.

2. Common Terms and Equations

In statistical analysis, two hypotheses are used. The null hypothesis , or H 0 , states that there is no statistical significance between two variables. The null is often the commonly accepted position and is what scientists seek to not support through the study. The alternative hypothesis , or H a , states that there is a statistical significance between two variables and is what scientists are seeking to support through experimentation.

For example, if someone wants to see how they score on a math test relative to their class average, they can write hypotheses comparing the student’s score, to the class average score (µ). Let’s say for this example, the student’s score on a math exam was 75. The null (H 0 ) and alternative (H a ) hypotheses could be written as:

• H 0 : µ = 75
• H 0 : µ = µ 0
• H a : µ ≠ 75
• H a : µ ≠ µ 0

In the null hypothesis, there is no difference between the observed mean (µ) and the claimed value (75). However, in the alternative hypothesis, class mean is significantly different (either less than or greater than 75) from the student’s score (75). Statistical tests will be used to support to either support or reject the null hypothesis. When the null hypothesis is supported by the test, then the test indicates that there is not a statistically significant difference between the class mean score and the student’s mean score. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then the alternative hypothesis is supported, which leads to the conclusion that the student’s score is statistically significant difference from the class mean score.

Module 9: Hypothesis Testing With One Sample

Null and alternative hypotheses, learning outcomes.

• Describe hypothesis testing in general and in practice

The actual test begins by considering two  hypotheses . They are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.

H 0 : The null hypothesis: It is a statement about the population that either is believed to be true or is used to put forth an argument unless it can be shown to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt.

H a : The alternative hypothesis : It is a claim about the population that is contradictory to H 0 and what we conclude when we reject H 0 .

Since the null and alternative hypotheses are contradictory, you must examine evidence to decide if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or not. The evidence is in the form of sample data.

After you have determined which hypothesis the sample supports, you make adecision. There are two options for a  decision . They are “reject H 0 ” if the sample information favors the alternative hypothesis or “do not reject H 0 ” or “decline to reject H 0 ” if the sample information is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis.

Mathematical Symbols Used in  H 0 and H a :

H 0 always has a symbol with an equal in it. H a never has a symbol with an equal in it. The choice of symbol depends on the wording of the hypothesis test. However, be aware that many researchers (including one of the co-authors in research work) use = in the null hypothesis, even with > or < as the symbol in the alternative hypothesis. This practice is acceptable because we only make the decision to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

H 0 : No more than 30% of the registered voters in Santa Clara County voted in the primary election. p ≤ 30

H a : More than 30% of the registered voters in Santa Clara County voted in the primary election. p > 30

A medical trial is conducted to test whether or not a new medicine reduces cholesterol by 25%. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

H 0 : The drug reduces cholesterol by 25%. p = 0.25

H a : The drug does not reduce cholesterol by 25%. p ≠ 0.25

We want to test whether the mean GPA of students in American colleges is different from 2.0 (out of 4.0). The null and alternative hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ = 2.0

H a : μ ≠ 2.0

We want to test whether the mean height of eighth graders is 66 inches. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses. H 0 : μ __ 66 H a : μ __ 66

• H 0 : μ = 66
• H a : μ ≠ 66

We want to test if college students take less than five years to graduate from college, on the average. The null and alternative hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ ≥ 5

H a : μ < 5

We want to test if it takes fewer than 45 minutes to teach a lesson plan. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol ( =, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses. H 0 : μ __ 45 H a : μ __ 45

• H 0 : μ ≥ 45
• H a : μ < 45

In an issue of U.S. News and World Report , an article on school standards stated that about half of all students in France, Germany, and Israel take advanced placement exams and a third pass. The same article stated that 6.6% of U.S. students take advanced placement exams and 4.4% pass. Test if the percentage of U.S. students who take advanced placement exams is more than 6.6%. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

H 0 : p ≤ 0.066

H a : p > 0.066

On a state driver’s test, about 40% pass the test on the first try. We want to test if more than 40% pass on the first try. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses. H 0 : p __ 0.40 H a : p __ 0.40

• H 0 : p = 0.40
• H a : p > 0.40

Concept Review

In a  hypothesis test , sample data is evaluated in order to arrive at a decision about some type of claim. If certain conditions about the sample are satisfied, then the claim can be evaluated for a population. In a hypothesis test, we: Evaluate the null hypothesis , typically denoted with H 0 . The null is not rejected unless the hypothesis test shows otherwise. The null statement must always contain some form of equality (=, ≤ or ≥) Always write the alternative hypothesis , typically denoted with H a or H 1 , using less than, greater than, or not equals symbols, i.e., (≠, >, or <). If we reject the null hypothesis, then we can assume there is enough evidence to support the alternative hypothesis. Never state that a claim is proven true or false. Keep in mind the underlying fact that hypothesis testing is based on probability laws; therefore, we can talk only in terms of non-absolute certainties.

Formula Review

H 0 and H a are contradictory.

• OpenStax, Statistics, Null and Alternative Hypotheses. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:58/Introductory_Statistics . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Introductory Statistics . Authored by : Barbara Illowski, Susan Dean. Provided by : Open Stax. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Simple hypothesis testing | Probability and Statistics | Khan Academy. Authored by : Khan Academy. Located at : https://youtu.be/5D1gV37bKXY . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• Health Tech
• Health Insurance
• Medical Devices
• Gene Therapy
• Neuroscience
• H5N1 Bird Flu
• Health Disparities
• Infectious Disease
• Mental Health
• Cardiovascular Disease
• Chronic Disease
• Alzheimer's
• Coercive Care
• The Obesity Revolution
• The War on Recovery
• Adam Feuerstein
• Matthew Herper
• Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu
• Ed Silverman
• CRISPR Tracker
• Breakthrough Device Tracker
• Generative AI Tracker
• Obesity Drug Tracker
• 2024 STAT Summit
• All Summits
• STATUS List
• STAT Madness
• STAT Brand Studio

Don't miss out

Subscribe to STAT+ today, for the best life sciences journalism in the industry

‘Null’ research findings aren’t empty of meaning. Let’s publish them

By Anupam B. Jena Nov. 10, 2017

E very medical researcher dreams of doing studies or conducting clinical trials that generate results so compelling they change how diseases are treated or health policy is written. In reality, we are lucky if the results are even a little bit positive, and often end up with “null” results, meaning that the effect of a policy, drug, or clinical intervention that we tested is no different than that of some alternative.

“Null” comes from the null hypothesis, the bedrock of the scientific method. Say I want to test whether the switch to daylight saving time affects the outcomes of surgery because surgeons may be slightly more fatigued in the days following the transition due to lost sleep. I set up a null hypothesis — surgery-related deaths are no different in the days immediately before the switch to daylight saving time compared to the days immediately after it — and then try to nullify, or disprove, it to show that there was indeed a difference. (Read on to see the answer, though you can probably guess from the headline what it is.) Disproving the null hypothesis is standard operating procedure in science.

advertisement

Null results are exceedingly common. Yet they aren’t nearly as likely to get published as “positive” results, even though they should be. In an analysis of nearly 30,000 presentations made at scientific conferences, fewer than half were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, and negative or null results were far less likely to be published than positive results. Clinical trials with positive findings are published more often and sooner than negative or null trials.

That’s a shame, because publishing null results is an important endeavor. Some null results represent potentially important discoveries, such as finding that paying hospitals for performance based on the quality of their outcomes has no effect on actually improving quality. The majority of research questions, though, don’t fall into this category. Leaving null results unpublished can also result in other researchers conducting the same study, wasting time and resources.

Related: Keep negativity out of politics. We need more of it in journals

Some unpublished null findings are on important topics, like whether public reporting of physician’s outcomes leads physicians to “game the system” and alter the care that they provide patients. Others come from explorations of quirkier topics.

Here are a few of each from my own unpublished research.

Daughters and life expectancy. Daughters are more likely than sons to provide care to their ailing parents. Does that mean being blessed with a daughter translates into greater life expectancy? Using data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study , I compared mortality rates among adults with one daughter versus those with one son. There was no difference. Ditto for families with two daughters versus two sons.

Daylight saving time and surgical mortality. The switch to daylight saving time in the spring has been linked to increased driving accidents immediately after the transition, attributed to fatigue from the hour of lost sleep. I investigated whether this time switch affects the care provided by surgeons by studying operative mortality in the days after the transition. U.S. health insurance claims data from 2002 to 2012 showed no increase in operation-related deaths in the days after the transition to daylight saving time compared to the days just before it.

Tubal ligations and son preference. A preference for sons has been documented in developing countries such as China and India as well as in the United States . When I was a medical student rotating in obstetrics, I heard a patient ask her obstetrician, “Please tie my tubes,” because she had finally had a son. Years later, I investigated whether that observation could be systematically true using health insurance claims data from the U.S. Among women who had recently given birth, there was no difference in later tubal ligation rates between those giving birth to sons versus daughters.

Gaming the reporting of heart surgery deaths. One strategy for improving the delivery of health care is public reporting of doctors’ outcomes. Some evidence suggests that doctors may game the system by choosing healthier patients who are less likely to experience poor outcomes. One important metric is 30-day mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery or placement of an artery-opening stent. I wanted to know if heart surgeons were trying to avoid bad scores on 30-day mortality by ordering intensive interventions to keep patients who had experienced one or more complications from the procedure alive beyond the 30-day mark to avoid being dinged in the publicly reported statistics. I hypothesized that in states with public reporting, such as New York, deaths would be higher on post-procedure days 31 to 35 than on days 25 to 29 if doctors chose to keep patients alive by extreme measures. The data didn’t back that up — there was no evidence that cardiac surgeons or cardiologists attempt to game public reporting in this way.

Sign up for the First Opinion newsletter

A weekly digest of our opinion column, with insight from industry experts.

Halloween and hospitalization for high blood sugar. Children consume massive amounts of candy on and immediately after Halloween. Does this onslaught of candy consumption increase the number of episodes of seriously high blood sugar among children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes? I looked at emergency department use and hospitalization for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) among children between the ages of 5 and 18 years in the eight weeks before Halloween versus the eight weeks after, using as a control group adults aged 35 and older to account for any seasonal trends in hospitalizations. There was no increase in emergency visits for hyperglycemia or hospitalizations for it among either adults or children in the days following Halloween.

The 2008 stock market crash and surgeons’ quality of care. During a three-week period in 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 3,000 points, or nearly 25 percent of the Dow’s value. The sharp, massive decline in wealth for many Americans, particularly those with enough money to be heavily invested in stocks, had the potential to create immediate and significant stress. Was this acute, financial stress large enough to throw surgeons off their game? Using U.S. health insurance claims data for 2007 and 2008 that included patient deaths, I analyzed whether weekly 30-day postoperative mortality rates rose in the month following the crash, using 2007 as a control for seasonal trends. There were nearly identical 30-day mortality rates by week in both 2007 and 2008, suggesting that the stock market crash, while stressful, did not distract surgeons from their work.

The bottom line

Not reporting null research findings likely reflects competing priorities of scientific journals and researchers. With limited resources and space, journals prefer to publish positive findings and select only the most important null findings. Many researchers aren’t keen to publish null findings because the effort required to do so may not ultimately be rewarded by acceptance of the research into a scientific journal.

There are a few opportunities for researchers to publish null findings. For example, the Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis has been publishing twice a year since 2002, and the Public Library of Science occasionally publishes negative and null results in its Missing Pieces collection. Perhaps a newly announced prize for publishing negative scientific results will spur researchers to pay more attention to this kind of work. The 10,000 Euro prize , initially aimed at neuroscience, is being sponsored by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology’s Preclinical Data Forum .

For many researchers, though, the effort required to publish articles in these forums may not be worth the lift, particularly since the amount of effort required to write up a positive study is the same as for a null study.

The scientific community could benefit from more reporting of null findings, even if the reports were briefer and had less detail than would be needed for peer review. I’m not sure how we could accomplish that, but would welcome any ideas.

Reporting null findings

Anupam B. Jena, MD, is an economist, physician, and associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. He has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Hill Rom Services, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Precision Health Economics, a company providing consulting services to the life sciences industry.

About the Author Reprints

Anupam b. jena.

STAT encourages you to share your voice. We welcome your commentary, criticism, and expertise on our subscriber-only platform, STAT+ Connect

To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page .

Recommended

Recommended Stories

Presidential debate moderators should ask about mental health policy

Gaza polio vaccination drive must include measles shots

STAT Plus: UnitedHealth pledged a hands-off approach after buying a Connecticut medical group. Then it upended how doctors practice

STAT Plus: Alnylam versus BridgeBio: The ATTR-CM debate

Embedded Bias: Doctors use problematic race-based algorithms to guide care every day. Why are they so hard to change?

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 19 May 2010

The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation

• Luis Carlos Silva-Ayçaguer 1 ,
• Patricio Suárez-Gil 2 &
• Ana Fernández-Somoano 3  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  10 , Article number:  44 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

23 Citations

18 Altmetric

Metrics details

The null hypothesis significance test (NHST) is the most frequently used statistical method, although its inferential validity has been widely criticized since its introduction. In 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) warned against sole reliance on NHST to substantiate study conclusions and suggested supplementary use of confidence intervals (CI). Our objective was to evaluate the extent and quality in the use of NHST and CI, both in English and Spanish language biomedical publications between 1995 and 2006, taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on the accuracy of the interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.

Original articles published in three English and three Spanish biomedical journals in three fields (General Medicine, Clinical Specialties and Epidemiology - Public Health) were considered for this study. Papers published in 1995-1996, 2000-2001, and 2005-2006 were selected through a systematic sampling method. After excluding the purely descriptive and theoretical articles, analytic studies were evaluated for their use of NHST with P-values and/or CI for interpretation of statistical "significance" and "relevance" in study conclusions.

Among 1,043 original papers, 874 were selected for detailed review. The exclusive use of P-values was less frequent in English language publications as well as in Public Health journals; overall such use decreased from 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. While the use of CI increased over time, the "significance fallacy" (to equate statistical and substantive significance) appeared very often, mainly in journals devoted to clinical specialties (81%). In papers originally written in English and Spanish, 15% and 10%, respectively, mentioned statistical significance in their conclusions.

Conclusions

Overall, results of our review show some improvements in statistical management of statistical results, but further efforts by scholars and journal editors are clearly required to move the communication toward ICMJE advices, especially in the clinical setting, which seems to be imperative among publications in Spanish.

Peer Review reports

The null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) has been the most widely used statistical approach in health research over the past 80 years. Its origins dates back to 1279 [ 1 ] although it was in the second decade of the twentieth century when the statistician Ronald Fisher formally introduced the concept of "null hypothesis" H 0 - which, generally speaking, establishes that certain parameters do not differ from each other. He was the inventor of the "P-value" through which it could be assessed [ 2 ]. Fisher's P-value is defined as a conditional probability calculated using the results of a study. Specifically, the P-value is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. The Fisherian significance testing theory considered the p-value as an index to measure the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis in a single experiment. The father of NHST never endorsed, however, the inflexible application of the ultimately subjective threshold levels almost universally adopted later on (although the introduction of the 0.05 has his paternity also).

A few years later, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson considered the Fisherian approach inefficient, and in 1928 they published an article [ 3 ] that would provide the theoretical basis of what they called hypothesis statistical testing . The Neyman-Pearson approach is based on the notion that one out of two choices has to be taken: accept the null hypothesis taking the information as a reference based on the information provided, or reject it in favor of an alternative one. Thus, one can incur one of two types of errors: a Type I error, if the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true, and a Type II error, if the null hypothesis is accepted when it is actually false. They established a rule to optimize the decision process, using the p-value introduced by Fisher, by setting the maximum frequency of errors that would be admissible.

The null hypothesis statistical testing, as applied today, is a hybrid coming from the amalgamation of the two methods [ 4 ]. As a matter of fact, some 15 years later, both procedures were combined to give rise to the nowadays widespread use of an inferential tool that would satisfy none of the statisticians involved in the original controversy. The present method essentially goes as follows: given a null hypothesis, an estimate of the parameter (or parameters) is obtained and used to create statistics whose distribution, under H 0 , is known. With these data the P-value is computed. Finally, the null hypothesis is rejected when the obtained P-value is smaller than a certain comparative threshold (usually 0.05) and it is not rejected if P is larger than the threshold.

The first reservations about the validity of the method began to appear around 1940, when some statisticians censured the logical roots and practical convenience of Fisher's P-value [ 5 ]. Significance tests and P-values have repeatedly drawn the attention and criticism of many authors over the past 70 years, who have kept questioning its epistemological legitimacy as well as its practical value. What remains in spite of these criticisms is the lasting legacy of researchers' unwillingness to eradicate or reform these methods.

Although there are very comprehensive works on the topic [ 6 ], we list below some of the criticisms most universally accepted by specialists.

The P-values are used as a tool to make decisions in favor of or against a hypothesis. What really may be relevant, however, is to get an effect size estimate (often the difference between two values) rather than rendering dichotomous true/false verdicts [ 7 – 11 ].

The P-value is a conditional probability of the data, provided that some assumptions are met, but what really interests the investigator is the inverse probability: what degree of validity can be attributed to each of several competing hypotheses, once that certain data have been observed [ 12 ].

The two elements that affect the results, namely the sample size and the magnitude of the effect, are inextricably linked in the value of p and we can always get a lower P-value by increasing the sample size. Thus, the conclusions depend on a factor completely unrelated to the reality studied (i.e. the available resources, which in turn determine the sample size) [ 13 , 14 ].

Those who defend the NHST often assert the objective nature of that test, but the process is actually far from being so. NHST does not ensure objectivity. This is reflected in the fact that we generally operate with thresholds that are ultimately no more than conventions, such as 0.01 or 0.05. What is more, for many years their use has unequivocally demonstrated the inherent subjectivity that goes with the concept of P, regardless of how it will be used later [ 15 – 17 ].

In practice, the NHST is limited to a binary response sorting hypotheses into "true" and "false" or declaring "rejection" or "no rejection", without demanding a reasonable interpretation of the results, as has been noted time and again for decades. This binary orthodoxy validates categorical thinking, which results in a very simplistic view of scientific activity that induces researchers not to test theories about the magnitude of effect sizes [ 18 – 20 ].

Despite the weakness and shortcomings of the NHST, they are frequently taught as if they were the key inferential statistical method or the most appropriate, or even the sole unquestioned one. The statistical textbooks, with only some exceptions, do not even mention the NHST controversy. Instead, the myth is spread that NHST is the "natural" final action of scientific inference and the only procedure for testing hypotheses. However, relevant specialists and important regulators of the scientific world advocate avoiding them.

Taking especially into account that NHST does not offer the most important information (i.e. the magnitude of an effect of interest, and the precision of the estimate of the magnitude of that effect), many experts recommend the reporting of point estimates of effect sizes with confidence intervals as the appropriate representation of the inherent uncertainty linked to empirical studies [ 21 – 25 ]. Since 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, known as the Vancouver Group ) incorporates the following recommendation to authors of manuscripts submitted to medical journals: "When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P-values, which fail to convey important information about effect size" [ 26 ].

As will be shown, the use of confidence intervals (CI), occasionally accompanied by P-values, is recommended as a more appropriate method for reporting results. Some authors have noted several shortcomings of CI long ago [ 27 ]. In spite of the fact that calculating CI could be complicated indeed, and that their interpretation is far from simple [ 28 , 29 ], authors are urged to use them because they provide much more information than the NHST and do not merit most of its criticisms of NHST [ 30 ]. While some have proposed different options (for instance, likelihood-based information theoretic methods [ 31 ], and the Bayesian inferential paradigm [ 32 ]), confidence interval estimation of effect sizes is clearly the most widespread alternative approach.

Although twenty years have passed since the ICMJE began to disseminate such recommendations, systematically ignored by the vast majority of textbooks and hardly incorporated in medical publications [ 33 ], it is interesting to examine the extent to which the NHST is used in articles published in medical journals during recent years, in order to identify what is still lacking in the process of eradicating the widespread ceremonial use that is made of statistics in health research [ 34 ]. Furthermore, it is enlightening in this context to examine whether these patterns differ between English- and Spanish-speaking worlds and, if so, to see if the changes in paradigms are occurring more slowly in Spanish-language publications. In such a case we would offer various suggestions.

In addition to assessing the adherence to the above cited statistical recommendation proposed by ICMJE relative to the use of P-values, we consider it of particular interest to estimate the extent to which the significance fallacy is present, an inertial deficiency that consists of attributing -- explicitly or not -- qualitative importance or practical relevance to the found differences simply because statistical significance was obtained.

Many authors produce misleading statements such as "a significant effect was (or was not) found" when it should be said that "a statistically significant difference was (or was not) found". A detrimental consequence of this equivalence is that some authors believe that finding out whether there is "statistical significance" or not is the aim, so that this term is then mentioned in the conclusions [ 35 ]. This means virtually nothing, except that it indicates that the author is letting a computer do the thinking. Since the real research questions are never statistical ones, the answers cannot be statistical either. Accordingly, the conversion of the dichotomous outcome produced by a NHST into a conclusion is another manifestation of the mentioned fallacy.

The general objective of the present study is to evaluate the extent and quality of use of NHST and CI, both in English- and in Spanish-language biomedical publications, between 1995 and 2006 taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on accuracy regarding interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.

We reviewed the original articles from six journals, three in English and three in Spanish, over three disjoint periods sufficiently separated from each other (1995-1996, 2000-2001, 2005-2006) as to properly describe the evolution in prevalence of the target features along the selected periods.

The selection of journals was intended to get representation for each of the following three thematic areas: clinical specialties ( Obstetrics & Gynecology and Revista Española de Cardiología) ; Public Health and Epidemiology ( International Journal of Epidemiology and Atención Primaria) and the area of general and internal medicine ( British Medical Journal and Medicina Clínica ). Five of the selected journals formally endorsed ICMJE guidelines; the remaining one ( Revista Española de Cardiología ) suggests observing ICMJE demands in relation with specific issues. We attempted to capture journal diversity in the sample by selecting general and specialty journals with different degrees of influence, resulting from their impact factors in 2007, which oscillated between 1.337 (MC) and 9.723 (BMJ). No special reasons guided us to choose these specific journals, but we opted for journals with rather large paid circulations. For instance, the Spanish Cardiology Journal is the one with the largest impact factor among the fourteen Spanish Journals devoted to clinical specialties that have impact factor and Obstetrics & Gynecology has an outstanding impact factor among the huge number of journals available for selection.

It was decided to take around 60 papers for each biennium and journal, which means a total of around 1,000 papers. As recently suggested [ 36 , 37 ], this number was not established using a conventional method, but by means of a purposive and pragmatic approach in choosing the maximum sample size that was feasible.

Systematic sampling in phases [ 38 ] was used in applying a sampling fraction equal to 60/N, where N is the number of articles, in each of the 18 subgroups defined by crossing the six journals and the three time periods. Table 1 lists the population size and the sample size for each subgroup. While the sample within each subgroup was selected with equal probability, estimates based on other subsets of articles (defined across time periods, areas, or languages) are based on samples with various selection probabilities. Proper weights were used to take into account the stratified nature of the sampling in these cases.

Forty-nine of the 1,092 selected papers were eliminated because, although the section of the article in which they were assigned could suggest they were originals, detailed scrutiny revealed that in some cases they were not. The sample, therefore, consisted of 1,043 papers. Each of them was classified into one of three categories: (1) purely descriptive papers, those designed to review or characterize the state of affairs as it exists at present, (2) analytical papers, or (3) articles that address theoretical, methodological or conceptual issues. An article was regarded as analytical if it seeks to explain the reasons behind a particular occurrence by discovering causal relationships or, even if self-classified as descriptive, it was carried out to assess cause-effect associations among variables. We classify as theoretical or methodological those articles that do not handle empirical data as such, and focus instead on proposing or assessing research methods. We identified 169 papers as purely descriptive or theoretical, which were therefore excluded from the sample. Figure 1 presents a flow chart showing the process for determining eligibility for inclusion in the sample.

Flow chart of the selection process for eligible papers .

To estimate the adherence to ICMJE recommendations, we considered whether the papers used P-values, confidence intervals, and both simultaneously. By "the use of P-values" we mean that the article contains at least one P-value, explicitly mentioned in the text or at the bottom of a table, or that it reports that an effect was considered as statistically significant . It was deemed that an article uses CI if it explicitly contained at least one confidence interval, but not when it only provides information that could allow its computation (usually by presenting both the estimate and the standard error). Probability intervals provided in Bayesian analysis were classified as confidence intervals (although conceptually they are not the same) since what is really of interest here is whether or not the authors quantify the findings and present them with appropriate indicators of the margin of error or uncertainty.

In addition we determined whether the "Results" section of each article attributed the status of "significant" to an effect on the sole basis of the outcome of a NHST (i.e., without clarifying that it is strictly statistical significance). Similarly, we examined whether the term "significant" (applied to a test) was mistakenly used as synonymous with substantive , relevant or important . The use of the term "significant effect" when it is only appropriate as a reference to a "statistically significant difference," can be considered a direct expression of the significance fallacy [ 39 ] and, as such, constitutes one way to detect the problem in a specific paper.

We also assessed whether the "Conclusions," which sometimes appear as a separate section in the paper or otherwise in the last paragraphs of the "Discussion" section mentioned statistical significance and, if so, whether any of such mentions were no more than an allusion to results.

To perform these analyses we considered both the abstract and the body of the article. To assess the handling of the significance issue, however, only the body of the manuscript was taken into account.

The information was collected by four trained observers. Every paper was assigned to two reviewers. Disagreements were discussed and, if no agreement was reached, a third reviewer was consulted to break the tie and so moderate the effect of subjectivity in the assessment.

In order to assess the reliability of the criteria used for the evaluation of articles and to effect a convergence of criteria among the reviewers, a pilot study of 20 papers from each of three journals ( Clinical Medicine , Primary Care , and International Journal of Epidemiology) was performed. The results of this pilot study were satisfactory. Our results are reported using percentages together with their corresponding confidence intervals. For sampling errors estimations, used to obtain confidence intervals, we weighted the data using the inverse of the probability of selection of each paper, and we took into account the complex nature of the sample design. These analyses were carried out with EPIDAT [ 40 ], a specialized computer program that is readily available.

A total of 1,043 articles were reviewed, of which 874 (84%) were found to be analytic, while the remainders were purely descriptive or of a theoretical and methodological nature. Five of them did not employ either P-values or CI. Consequently, the analysis was made using the remaining 869 articles.

Use of NHST and confidence intervals

The percentage of articles that use only P-values, without even mentioning confidence intervals, to report their results has declined steadily throughout the period analyzed (Table 2 ). The percentage decreased from approximately 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. However, it does not differ notably among journals of different languages, as shown by the estimates and confidence intervals of the respective percentages. Concerning thematic areas, it is highly surprising that most of the clinical articles ignore the recommendations of ICMJE, while for general and internal medicine papers such a problem is only present in one in five papers, and in the area of Public Health and Epidemiology it occurs only in one out of six. The use of CI alone (without P-values) has increased slightly across the studied periods (from 9% to 13%), but it is five times more prevalent in Public Health and Epidemiology journals than in Clinical ones, where it reached a scanty 3%.

Ambivalent handling of the significance

While the percentage of articles referring implicitly or explicitly to significance in an ambiguous or incorrect way - that is, incurring the significance fallacy -- seems to decline steadily, the prevalence of this problem exceeds 69%, even in the most recent period. This percentage was almost the same for articles written in Spanish and in English, but it was notably higher in the Clinical journals (81%) compared to the other journals, where the problem occurs in approximately 7 out of 10 papers (Table 3 ). The kappa coefficient for measuring agreement between observers concerning the presence of the "significance fallacy" was 0.78 (CI95%: 0.62 to 0.93), which is considered acceptable in the scale of Landis and Koch [ 41 ].

Reference to numerical results or statistical significance in Conclusions

The percentage of papers mentioning a numerical finding as a conclusion is similar in the three periods analyzed (Table 4 ). Concerning languages, this percentage is nearly twice as large for Spanish journals as for those published in English (approximately 21% versus 12%). And, again, the highest percentage (16%) corresponded to clinical journals.

A similar pattern is observed, although with less pronounced differences, in references to the outcome of the NHST (significant or not) in the conclusions (Table 5 ). The percentage of articles that introduce the term in the "Conclusions" does not appreciably differ between articles written in Spanish and in English. Again, the area where this insufficiency is more often present (more than 15% of articles) is the Clinical area.

There are some previous studies addressing the degree to which researchers have moved beyond the ritualistic use of NHST to assess their hypotheses. This has been examined for areas such as biology [ 42 ], organizational research [ 43 ], or psychology [ 44 – 47 ]. However, to our knowledge, no recent research has explored the pattern of use P-values and CI in medical literature and, in any case, no efforts have been made to study this problem in a way that takes into account different languages and specialties.

At first glance it is puzzling that, after decades of questioning and technical warnings, and after twenty years since the inception of ICMJE recommendation to avoid NHST, they continue being applied ritualistically and mindlessly as the dominant doctrine. Not long ago, when researchers did not observe statistically significant effects, they were unlikely to write them up and to report "negative" findings, since they knew there was a high probability that the paper would be rejected. This has changed a bit: editors are more prone to judge all findings as potentially eloquent. This is probably the frequent denunciations of the tendency for those papers presenting a significant positive result to receive more favorable publication decisions than equally well-conducted ones that report a negative or null result, the so-called publication bias [ 48 – 50 ]. This new openness is consistent with the fact that if the substantive question addressed is really relevant, the answer (whether positive or negative) will also be relevant.

Consequently, even though it was not an aim of our study, we found many examples in which statistical significance was not obtained. However, many of those negative results were reported with a comment of this type: " The results did not show a significant difference between groups; however, with a larger sample size, this difference would have probably proved to be significant ". The problem with this statement is that it is true; more specifically, it will always be true and it is, therefore, sterile. It is not fortuitous that one never encounters the opposite, and equally tautological, statement: " A significant difference between groups has been detected; however, perhaps with a smaller sample size, this difference would have proved to be not significant" . Such a double standard is itself an unequivocal sign of the ritual application of NHST.

Although the declining rates of NHST usage show that, gradually, ICMJE and similar recommendations are having a positive impact, most of the articles in the clinical setting still considered NHST as the final arbiter of the research process. Moreover, it appears that the improvement in the situation is mostly formal, and the percentage of articles that fall into the significance fallacy is huge.

The contradiction between what has been conceptually recommended and the common practice is sensibly less acute in the area of Epidemiology and Public Health, but the same pattern was evident everywhere in the mechanical way of applying significance tests. Nevertheless, the clinical journals remain the most unmoved by the recommendations.

The ICMJE recommendations are not cosmetic statements but substantial ones, and the vigorous exhortations made by outstanding authorities [ 51 ] are not mere intellectual exercises due to ingenious and inopportune methodologists, but rather they are very serious epistemological warnings.

In some cases, the role of CI is not as clearly suitable (e.g. when estimating multiple regression coefficients or because effect sizes are not available for some research designs [ 43 , 52 ]), but when it comes to estimating, for example, an odds ratio or a rates difference, the advantage of using CI instead of P values is very clear, since in such cases it is obvious that the goal is to assess what has been called the "effect size."

The inherent resistance to change old paradigms and practices that have been entrenched for decades is always high. Old habits die hard. The estimates and trends outlined are entirely consistent with Alvan Feinstein's warning 25 years ago: "Because the history of medical research also shows a long tradition of maintaining loyalty to established doctrines long after the doctrines had been discredited, or shown to be valueless, we cannot expect a sudden change in this medical policy merely because it has been denounced by leading connoisseurs of statistics [ 53 ]".

It is possible, however, that the nature of the problem has an external explanation: it is likely that some editors prefer to "avoid troubles" with the authors and vice versa, thus resorting to the most conventional procedures. Many junior researchers believe that it is wise to avoid long back-and-forth discussions with reviewers and editors. In general, researchers who want to appear in print and survive in a publish-or-perish environment are motivated by force, fear, and expedience in their use of NHST [ 54 ]. Furthermore, it is relatively natural that simple researchers use NHST when they take into account that some theoretical objectors have used this statistical analysis in empirical studies, published after the appearance of their own critiques [ 55 ].

For example, Journal of the American Medical Association published a bibliometric study [ 56 ] discussing the impact of statisticians' co-authorship of medical papers on publication decisions by two major high-impact journals: British Medical Journal and Annals of Internal Medicine . The data analysis is characterized by methodological orthodoxy. The authors just use chi-square tests without any reference to CI, although the NHST had been repeatedly criticized over the years by two of the authors:

Douglas Altman, an early promoter of confidence intervals as an alternative [ 57 ], and Steve Goodman, a critic of NHST from a Bayesian perspective [ 58 ]. Individual authors, however, cannot be blamed for broader institutional problems and systemic forces opposed to change.

The present effort is certainly partial in at least two ways: it is limited to only six specific journals and to three biennia. It would be therefore highly desirable to improve it by studying the problem in a more detailed way (especially by reviewing more journals with different profiles), and continuing the review of prevailing patterns and trends.

Curran-Everett D: Explorations in statistics: hypothesis tests and P values. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009, 33: 81-86. 10.1152/advan.90218.2008.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fisher RA: Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 1925, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd

Google Scholar  

Neyman J, Pearson E: On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference. Biometrika. 1928, 20: 175-240.

Silva LC: Los laberintos de la investigación biomédica. En defensa de la racionalidad para la ciencia del siglo XXI. 2009, Madrid: Díaz de Santos

Berkson J: Test of significance considered as evidence. J Am Stat Assoc. 1942, 37: 325-335. 10.2307/2279000.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nickerson RS: Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000, 5: 241-301. 10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rozeboom WW: The fallacy of the null hypothesissignificance test. Psychol Bull. 1960, 57: 418-428. 10.1037/h0042040.

Callahan JL, Reio TG: Making subjective judgments in quantitative studies: The importance of using effect sizes and confidenceintervals. HRD Quarterly. 2006, 17: 159-173.

Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC: Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 2007, 82: 591-605. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x.

Breaugh JA: Effect size estimation: factors to consider and mistakes to avoid. J Manage. 2003, 29: 79-97. 10.1177/014920630302900106.

Thompson B: What future quantitative social science research could look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educ Res. 2002, 31: 25-32.

Matthews RA: Significance levels for the assessment of anomalous phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1999, 13: 1-7.

Savage IR: Nonparametric statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1957, 52: 332-333.

Silva LC, Benavides A, Almenara J: El péndulo bayesiano: Crónica de una polémica estadística. Llull. 2002, 25: 109-128.

Goodman SN, Royall R: Evidence and scientific research. Am J Public Health. 1988, 78: 1568-1574. 10.2105/AJPH.78.12.1568.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Berger JO, Berry DA: Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. Am Sci. 1988, 76: 159-165.

Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM: Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann Zool Fenn. 2009, 46: 311-349.

Fidler F, Thomason N, Cumming G, Finch S, Leeman J: Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals but they can't make them think: Statistical reform lessons from Medicine. Psychol Sci. 2004, 15: 119-126. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502008.x.

Balluerka N, Vergara AI, Arnau J: Calculating the main alternatives to null-hypothesis-significance testing in between-subject experimental designs. Psicothema. 2009, 21: 141-151.

Cumming G, Fidler F: Confidence intervals: Better answers to better questions. J Psychol. 2009, 217: 15-26.

Jones LV, Tukey JW: A sensible formulation of the significance test. Psychol Methods. 2000, 5: 411-414. 10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.411.

Dixon P: The p-value fallacy and how to avoid it. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003, 57: 189-202.

Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC: Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007, 82: 591-605. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x.

Brandstaetter E: Confidence intervals as an alternative to significance testing. MPR-Online. 2001, 4: 33-46.

Masson ME, Loftus GR: Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003, 57: 203-220.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Update October 2008. Accessed July 11, 2009, [ http://www.icmje.org ]

Feinstein AR: P-Values and Confidence Intervals: two sides of the same unsatisfactory coin. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998, 51: 355-360. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00295-3.

Haller H, Kraus S: Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers?. MRP-Online. 2002, 7: 1-20.

Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Vitouch O: The null ritual: What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask. The Handbook of Methodology for the Social Sciences. Edited by: Kaplan D. 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Chapter 21: 391-408.

Curran-Everett D, Taylor S, Kafadar K: Fundamental concepts in statistics: elucidation and illustration. J Appl Physiol. 1998, 85: 775-786.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Royall RM: Statistical evidence: a likelihood paradigm. 1997, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC

Goodman SN: Of P values and Bayes: A modest proposal. Epidemiology. 2001, 12: 295-297. 10.1097/00001648-200105000-00006.

Sarria M, Silva LC: Tests of statistical significance in three biomedical journals: a critical review. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2004, 15: 300-306.

Silva LC: Una ceremonia estadística para identificar factores de riesgo. Salud Colectiva. 2005, 1: 322-329.

Goodman SN: Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics 1: The p Value Fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999, 130: 995-1004.

Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Sample size calculations in randomised clinical trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1348-1353. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3.

Bacchetti P: Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010, 8: 17-10.1186/1741-7015-8-17.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Silva LC: Diseño razonado de muestras para la investigación sanitaria. 2000, Madrid: Díaz de Santos

Barnett ML, Mathisen A: Tyranny of the p-value: The conflict between statistical significance and common sense. J Dent Res. 1997, 76: 534-536. 10.1177/00220345970760010201.

Santiago MI, Hervada X, Naveira G, Silva LC, Fariñas H, Vázquez E, Bacallao J, Mújica OJ: [The Epidat program: uses and perspectives] [letter]. Pan Am J Public Health. 2010, 27: 80-82. Spanish.

Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-74. 10.2307/2529310.

Fidler F, Burgman MA, Cumming G, Buttrose R, Thomason N: Impact of criticism of null-hypothesis significance testing on statistical reporting practices in conservation biology. Conserv Biol. 2005, 20: 1539-1544. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00525.x.

Kline RB: Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. 2004, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Book   Google Scholar  

Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ: Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007, 31: 295-298. 10.1152/advan.00022.2007.

Hubbard R, Parsa AR, Luthy MR: The spread of statistical significance testing: The case of the Journal of Applied Psychology. Theor Psychol. 1997, 7: 545-554. 10.1177/0959354397074006.

Vacha-Haase T, Nilsson JE, Reetz DR, Lance TS, Thompson B: Reporting practices and APA editorial policies regarding statistical significance and effect size. Theor Psychol. 2000, 10: 413-425. 10.1177/0959354300103006.

Krueger J: Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method. Am Psychol. 2001, 56: 16-26. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.1.16.

Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L: Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: e217-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217

Sridharan L, Greenland L: Editorial policies and publication bias the importance of negative studies. Arch Intern Med. 2009, 169: 1022-1023. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100.

Falagas ME, Alexiou VG: The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2008, 56: 223-226. 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5.

Rothman K: Writing for Epidemiology. Epidemiology. 1998, 9: 98-104. 10.1097/00001648-199805000-00019.

Fidler F: The fifth edition of the APA publication manual: Why its statistics recommendations are so controversial. Educ Psychol Meas. 2002, 62: 749-770. 10.1177/001316402236876.

Feinstein AR: Clinical epidemiology: The architecture of clinical research. 1985, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company

Orlitzky M: Institutionalized dualism: statistical significance testing as myth and ceremony. Accessed Feb 8, 2010, [ http://ssrn.com/abstract=1415926 ]

Greenwald AG, González R, Harris RJ, Guthrie D: Effect sizes and p-value. What should be reported and what should be replicated?. Psychophysiology. 1996, 33: 175-183. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02121.x.

Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S: How statistical expertise is used in medical research. J Am Med Assoc. 2002, 287: 2817-2820. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2817.

Gardner MJ, Altman DJ: Statistics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. 1992, London: BMJ

Goodman SN: P Values, Hypothesis Tests and Likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate. Am J Epidemiol. 1993, 137: 485-496.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/44/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tania Iglesias-Cabo and Vanesa Alvarez-González for their help with the collection of empirical data and their participation in an earlier version of the paper. The manuscript has benefited greatly from thoughtful, constructive feedback by Carlos Campillo-Artero, Tom Piazza and Ann Séror.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centro Nacional de Investigación de Ciencias Médicas, La Habana, Cuba

Luis Carlos Silva-Ayçaguer

Unidad de Investigación. Hospital de Cabueñes, Servicio de Salud del Principado de Asturias (SESPA), Gijón, Spain

Patricio Suárez-Gil

CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain and Departamento de Medicina, Unidad de Epidemiología Molecular del Instituto Universitario de Oncología, Universidad de Oviedo, Spain

Ana Fernández-Somoano

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricio Suárez-Gil .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

LCSA designed the study, wrote the paper and supervised the whole process; PSG coordinated the data extraction and carried out statistical analysis, as well as participated in the editing process; AFS extracted the data and participated in the first stage of statistical analysis; all authors contributed to and revised the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Silva-Ayçaguer, L.C., Suárez-Gil, P. & Fernández-Somoano, A. The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation. BMC Med Res Methodol 10 , 44 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-44

Download citation

Received : 29 December 2009

Accepted : 19 May 2010

Published : 19 May 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-44

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical Specialty
• Significance Fallacy
• Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing
• Medical Journal Editor
• Clinical Journal

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Null Hypothesis Examples

ThoughtCo / Hilary Allison

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

In statistical analysis, the null hypothesis assumes there is no meaningful relationship between two variables. Testing the null hypothesis can tell you whether your results are due to the effect of manipulating ​a dependent variable or due to chance. It's often used in conjunction with an alternative hypothesis, which assumes there is, in fact, a relationship between two variables.

The null hypothesis is among the easiest hypothesis to test using statistical analysis, making it perhaps the most valuable hypothesis for the scientific method. By evaluating a null hypothesis in addition to another hypothesis, researchers can support their conclusions with a higher level of confidence. Below are examples of how you might formulate a null hypothesis to fit certain questions.

What Is the Null Hypothesis?

The null hypothesis states there is no relationship between the measured phenomenon (the dependent variable ) and the independent variable , which is the variable an experimenter typically controls or changes. You do not​ need to believe that the null hypothesis is true to test it. On the contrary, you will likely suspect there is a relationship between a set of variables. One way to prove that this is the case is to reject the null hypothesis. Rejecting a hypothesis does not mean an experiment was "bad" or that it didn't produce results. In fact, it is often one of the first steps toward further inquiry.

To distinguish it from other hypotheses , the null hypothesis is written as ​ H 0  (which is read as “H-nought,” "H-null," or "H-zero"). A significance test is used to determine the likelihood that the results supporting the null hypothesis are not due to chance. A confidence level of 95% or 99% is common. Keep in mind, even if the confidence level is high, there is still a small chance the null hypothesis is not true, perhaps because the experimenter did not account for a critical factor or because of chance. This is one reason why it's important to repeat experiments.

Examples of the Null Hypothesis

To write a null hypothesis, first start by asking a question. Rephrase that question in a form that assumes no relationship between the variables. In other words, assume a treatment has no effect. Write your hypothesis in a way that reflects this.

Other Types of Hypotheses

In addition to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis is also a staple in traditional significance tests . It's essentially the opposite of the null hypothesis because it assumes the claim in question is true. For the first item in the table above, for example, an alternative hypothesis might be "Age does have an effect on mathematical ability."

Key Takeaways

• In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis assumes no relationship between two variables, providing a baseline for statistical analysis.
• Rejecting the null hypothesis suggests there is evidence of a relationship between variables.
• By formulating a null hypothesis, researchers can systematically test assumptions and draw more reliable conclusions from their experiments.
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Random Error vs. Systematic Error
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• The Role of a Controlled Variable in an Experiment
• What Is an Experimental Constant?
• What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• What Is the Difference Between a Control Variable and Control Group?
• DRY MIX Experiment Variables Acronym
• What Is a Controlled Experiment?
• Scientific Variable

What is The Null Hypothesis & When Do You Reject The Null Hypothesis

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A null hypothesis is a statistical concept suggesting no significant difference or relationship between measured variables. It’s the default assumption unless empirical evidence proves otherwise.

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (i.e., one variable does not affect the other).

The null hypothesis is the statement that a researcher or an investigator wants to disprove.

Testing the null hypothesis can tell you whether your results are due to the effects of manipulating ​ the dependent variable or due to random chance. 

How to Write a Null Hypothesis

Null hypotheses (H0) start as research questions that the investigator rephrases as statements indicating no effect or relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

It is a default position that your research aims to challenge or confirm.

For example, if studying the impact of exercise on weight loss, your null hypothesis might be:

There is no significant difference in weight loss between individuals who exercise daily and those who do not.

Examples of Null Hypotheses

When Do We Reject The Null Hypothesis? 

We reject the null hypothesis when the data provide strong enough evidence to conclude that it is likely incorrect. This often occurs when the p-value (probability of observing the data given the null hypothesis is true) is below a predetermined significance level.

If the collected data does not meet the expectation of the null hypothesis, a researcher can conclude that the data lacks sufficient evidence to back up the null hypothesis, and thus the null hypothesis is rejected. 

Rejecting the null hypothesis means that a relationship does exist between a set of variables and the effect is statistically significant ( p > 0.05).

If the data collected from the random sample is not statistically significance , then the null hypothesis will be accepted, and the researchers can conclude that there is no relationship between the variables. 

You need to perform a statistical test on your data in order to evaluate how consistent it is with the null hypothesis. A p-value is one statistical measurement used to validate a hypothesis against observed data.

Calculating the p-value is a critical part of null-hypothesis significance testing because it quantifies how strongly the sample data contradicts the null hypothesis.

The level of statistical significance is often expressed as a  p  -value between 0 and 1. The smaller the p-value, the stronger the evidence that you should reject the null hypothesis.

Usually, a researcher uses a confidence level of 95% or 99% (p-value of 0.05 or 0.01) as general guidelines to decide if you should reject or keep the null.

When your p-value is less than or equal to your significance level, you reject the null hypothesis.

In other words, smaller p-values are taken as stronger evidence against the null hypothesis. Conversely, when the p-value is greater than your significance level, you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

In this case, the sample data provides insufficient data to conclude that the effect exists in the population.

Because you can never know with complete certainty whether there is an effect in the population, your inferences about a population will sometimes be incorrect.

When you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis, it’s called a type I error. When you incorrectly fail to reject it, it’s called a type II error.

Why Do We Never Accept The Null Hypothesis?

The reason we do not say “accept the null” is because we are always assuming the null hypothesis is true and then conducting a study to see if there is evidence against it. And, even if we don’t find evidence against it, a null hypothesis is not accepted.

A lack of evidence only means that you haven’t proven that something exists. It does not prove that something doesn’t exist. 

It is risky to conclude that the null hypothesis is true merely because we did not find evidence to reject it. It is always possible that researchers elsewhere have disproved the null hypothesis, so we cannot accept it as true, but instead, we state that we failed to reject the null. 

One can either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject it, but can never accept it.

Why Do We Use The Null Hypothesis?

We can never prove with 100% certainty that a hypothesis is true; We can only collect evidence that supports a theory. However, testing a hypothesis can set the stage for rejecting or accepting this hypothesis within a certain confidence level.

The null hypothesis is useful because it can tell us whether the results of our study are due to random chance or the manipulation of a variable (with a certain level of confidence).

A null hypothesis is rejected if the measured data is significantly unlikely to have occurred and a null hypothesis is accepted if the observed outcome is consistent with the position held by the null hypothesis.

Rejecting the null hypothesis sets the stage for further experimentation to see if a relationship between two variables exists. 

Hypothesis testing is a critical part of the scientific method as it helps decide whether the results of a research study support a particular theory about a given population. Hypothesis testing is a systematic way of backing up researchers’ predictions with statistical analysis.

It helps provide sufficient statistical evidence that either favors or rejects a certain hypothesis about the population parameter. 

Purpose of a Null Hypothesis 

• The primary purpose of the null hypothesis is to disprove an assumption. 
• Whether rejected or accepted, the null hypothesis can help further progress a theory in many scientific cases.
• A null hypothesis can be used to ascertain how consistent the outcomes of multiple studies are.

Do you always need both a Null Hypothesis and an Alternative Hypothesis?

The null (H0) and alternative (Ha or H1) hypotheses are two competing claims that describe the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. They are mutually exclusive, which means that only one of the two hypotheses can be true. 

While the null hypothesis states that there is no effect in the population, an alternative hypothesis states that there is statistical significance between two variables. 

The goal of hypothesis testing is to make inferences about a population based on a sample. In order to undertake hypothesis testing, you must express your research hypothesis as a null and alternative hypothesis. Both hypotheses are required to cover every possible outcome of the study. 

What is the difference between a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis?

The alternative hypothesis is the complement to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis claims that there is an effect or relationship in the population.

It is the claim that you expect or hope will be true. The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis are always mutually exclusive, meaning that only one can be true at a time.

What are some problems with the null hypothesis?

One major problem with the null hypothesis is that researchers typically will assume that accepting the null is a failure of the experiment. However, accepting or rejecting any hypothesis is a positive result. Even if the null is not refuted, the researchers will still learn something new.

Why can a null hypothesis not be accepted?

We can either reject or fail to reject a null hypothesis, but never accept it. If your test fails to detect an effect, this is not proof that the effect doesn’t exist. It just means that your sample did not have enough evidence to conclude that it exists.

We can’t accept a null hypothesis because a lack of evidence does not prove something that does not exist. Instead, we fail to reject it.

Failing to reject the null indicates that the sample did not provide sufficient enough evidence to conclude that an effect exists.

If the p-value is greater than the significance level, then you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Is a null hypothesis directional or non-directional?

A hypothesis test can either contain an alternative directional hypothesis or a non-directional alternative hypothesis. A directional hypothesis is one that contains the less than (“<“) or greater than (“>”) sign.

A nondirectional hypothesis contains the not equal sign (“≠”).  However, a null hypothesis is neither directional nor non-directional.

A null hypothesis is a prediction that there will be no change, relationship, or difference between two variables.

The directional hypothesis or nondirectional hypothesis would then be considered alternative hypotheses to the null hypothesis.

Gill, J. (1999). The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing.  Political research quarterly ,  52 (3), 647-674.

Krueger, J. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method.  American Psychologist ,  56 (1), 16.

Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing.  Behavior research methods ,  43 , 679-690.

Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy.  Psychological methods ,  5 (2), 241.

Rozeboom, W. W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test.  Psychological bulletin ,  57 (5), 416.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

null hypothesis

Definition of null hypothesis

Examples of null hypothesis in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'null hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1935, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near null hypothesis

Nullarbor Plain

Cite this Entry

“Null hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20hypothesis. Accessed 6 Sep. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on null hypothesis

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about null hypothesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), games & quizzes.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Hypothesis Testing with One Sample

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

OpenStaxCollege

[latexpage]

The actual test begins by considering two hypotheses . They are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.

H 0 : The null hypothesis: It is a statement about the population that either is believed to be true or is used to put forth an argument unless it can be shown to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt.

H a : The alternative hypothesis: It is a claim about the population that is contradictory to H 0 and what we conclude when we reject H 0 .

Since the null and alternative hypotheses are contradictory, you must examine evidence to decide if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or not. The evidence is in the form of sample data.

After you have determined which hypothesis the sample supports, you make a decision. There are two options for a decision. They are “reject H 0 ” if the sample information favors the alternative hypothesis or “do not reject H 0 ” or “decline to reject H 0 ” if the sample information is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis.

Mathematical Symbols Used in H 0 and H a :

H 0 always has a symbol with an equal in it. H a never has a symbol with an equal in it. The choice of symbol depends on the wording of the hypothesis test. However, be aware that many researchers (including one of the co-authors in research work) use = in the null hypothesis, even with > or < as the symbol in the alternative hypothesis. This practice is acceptable because we only make the decision to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

H 0 : No more than 30% of the registered voters in Santa Clara County voted in the primary election. p ≤ 30

A medical trial is conducted to test whether or not a new medicine reduces cholesterol by 25%. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

H 0 : The drug reduces cholesterol by 25%. p = 0.25

H a : The drug does not reduce cholesterol by 25%. p ≠ 0.25

We want to test whether the mean GPA of students in American colleges is different from 2.0 (out of 4.0). The null and alternative hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ = 2.0

We want to test whether the mean height of eighth graders is 66 inches. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : μ = 66
• H a : μ ≠ 66

We want to test if college students take less than five years to graduate from college, on the average. The null and alternative hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ ≥ 5

We want to test if it takes fewer than 45 minutes to teach a lesson plan. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Fill in the correct symbol ( =, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : μ ≥ 45
• H a : μ < 45

In an issue of U. S. News and World Report , an article on school standards stated that about half of all students in France, Germany, and Israel take advanced placement exams and a third pass. The same article stated that 6.6% of U.S. students take advanced placement exams and 4.4% pass. Test if the percentage of U.S. students who take advanced placement exams is more than 6.6%. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

H 0 : p ≤ 0.066

On a state driver’s test, about 40% pass the test on the first try. We want to test if more than 40% pass on the first try. Fill in the correct symbol (=, ≠, ≥, <, ≤, >) for the null and alternative hypotheses.

• H 0 : p = 0.40
• H a : p > 0.40

<!– ??? –>

Bring to class a newspaper, some news magazines, and some Internet articles . In groups, find articles from which your group can write null and alternative hypotheses. Discuss your hypotheses with the rest of the class.

Chapter Review

In a hypothesis test , sample data is evaluated in order to arrive at a decision about some type of claim. If certain conditions about the sample are satisfied, then the claim can be evaluated for a population. In a hypothesis test, we:

Formula Review

H 0 and H a are contradictory.

If α ≤ p -value, then do not reject H 0 .

If α > p -value, then reject H 0 .

α is preconceived. Its value is set before the hypothesis test starts. The p -value is calculated from the data.

You are testing that the mean speed of your cable Internet connection is more than three Megabits per second. What is the random variable? Describe in words.

The random variable is the mean Internet speed in Megabits per second.

You are testing that the mean speed of your cable Internet connection is more than three Megabits per second. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

The American family has an average of two children. What is the random variable? Describe in words.

The random variable is the mean number of children an American family has.

The mean entry level salary of an employee at a company is 💲58,000. You believe it is higher for IT professionals in the company. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

A sociologist claims the probability that a person picked at random in Times Square in New York City is visiting the area is 0.83. You want to test to see if the proportion is actually less. What is the random variable? Describe in words.

The random variable is the proportion of people picked at random in Times Square visiting the city.

A sociologist claims the probability that a person picked at random in Times Square in New York City is visiting the area is 0.83. You want to test to see if the claim is correct. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

In a population of fish, approximately 42% are female. A test is conducted to see if, in fact, the proportion is less. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

Suppose that a recent article stated that the mean time spent in jail by a first–time convicted burglar is 2.5 years. A study was then done to see if the mean time has increased in the new century. A random sample of 26 first-time convicted burglars in a recent year was picked. The mean length of time in jail from the survey was 3 years with a standard deviation of 1.8 years. Suppose that it is somehow known that the population standard deviation is 1.5. If you were conducting a hypothesis test to determine if the mean length of jail time has increased, what would the null and alternative hypotheses be? The distribution of the population is normal.

A random survey of 75 death row inmates revealed that the mean length of time on death row is 17.4 years with a standard deviation of 6.3 years. If you were conducting a hypothesis test to determine if the population mean time on death row could likely be 15 years, what would the null and alternative hypotheses be?

• H 0 : __________
• H a : __________
• H 0 : μ = 15
• H a : μ ≠ 15

The National Institute of Mental Health published an article stating that in any one-year period, approximately 9.5 percent of American adults suffer from depression or a depressive illness. Suppose that in a survey of 100 people in a certain town, seven of them suffered from depression or a depressive illness. If you were conducting a hypothesis test to determine if the true proportion of people in that town suffering from depression or a depressive illness is lower than the percent in the general adult American population, what would the null and alternative hypotheses be?

Some of the following statements refer to the null hypothesis, some to the alternate hypothesis.

State the null hypothesis, H 0 , and the alternative hypothesis. H a , in terms of the appropriate parameter ( μ or p ).

• The mean number of years Americans work before retiring is 34.
• At most 60% of Americans vote in presidential elections.
• The mean starting salary for San Jose State University graduates is at least 💲100,000 per year.
• Twenty-nine percent of high school seniors get drunk each month.
• Fewer than 5% of adults ride the bus to work in Los Angeles.
• The mean number of cars a person owns in her lifetime is not more than ten.
• About half of Americans prefer to live away from cities, given the choice.
• Europeans have a mean paid vacation each year of six weeks.
• The chance of developing breast cancer is under 11% for women.
• Private universities’ mean tuition cost is more than 💲20,000 per year.
• H 0 : μ = 34; H a : μ ≠ 34
• H 0 : p ≤ 0.60; H a : p > 0.60
• H 0 : μ ≥ 100,000; H a : μ < 100,000
• H 0 : p = 0.29; H a : p ≠ 0.29
• H 0 : p = 0.05; H a : p < 0.05
• H 0 : μ ≤ 10; H a : μ > 10
• H 0 : p = 0.50; H a : p ≠ 0.50
• H 0 : μ = 6; H a : μ ≠ 6
• H 0 : p ≥ 0.11; H a : p < 0.11
• H 0 : μ ≤ 20,000; H a : μ > 20,000

Over the past few decades, public health officials have examined the link between weight concerns and teen girls’ smoking. Researchers surveyed a group of 273 randomly selected teen girls living in Massachusetts (between 12 and 15 years old). After four years the girls were surveyed again. Sixty-three said they smoked to stay thin. Is there good evidence that more than thirty percent of the teen girls smoke to stay thin? The alternative hypothesis is:

• p < 0.30
• p > 0.30

A statistics instructor believes that fewer than 20% of Evergreen Valley College (EVC) students attended the opening night midnight showing of the latest Harry Potter movie. She surveys 84 of her students and finds that 11 attended the midnight showing. An appropriate alternative hypothesis is:

• p > 0.20
• p < 0.20

Previously, an organization reported that teenagers spent 4.5 hours per week, on average, on the phone. The organization thinks that, currently, the mean is higher. Fifteen randomly chosen teenagers were asked how many hours per week they spend on the phone. The sample mean was 4.75 hours with a sample standard deviation of 2.0. Conduct a hypothesis test. The null and alternative hypotheses are:

• H o : \(\overline{x}\) = 4.5, H a : \(\overline{x}\) > 4.5
• H o : μ ≥ 4.5, H a : μ < 4.5
• H o : μ = 4.75, H a : μ > 4.75
• H o : μ = 4.5, H a : μ > 4.5

Data from the National Institute of Mental Health. Available online at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depression.cfm.

Null and Alternative Hypotheses Copyright © 2013 by OpenStaxCollege is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.5 Introduction to Hypothesis Tests

One job of a statistician is to make statistical inferences about populations based on samples taken from the population. Confidence intervals are one way to estimate a population parameter.

Another way to make a statistical inference is to make a decision about a parameter. For instance, a car dealership advertises that its new small truck gets 35 miles per gallon on average. A tutoring service claims that its method of tutoring helps 90% of its students get an A or a B. A company says that female managers in their company earn an average of $60,000 per year. A statistician may want to make a decision about or evaluate these claims. A hypothesis test can be used to do this.

A hypothesis test involves collecting data from a sample and evaluating the data. Then the statistician makes a decision as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis based upon analyses of the data.

In this section, you will conduct hypothesis tests on single means when the population standard deviation is known.

Hypothesis testing consists of two contradictory hypotheses or statements, a decision based on the data, and a conclusion. To perform a hypothesis test, a statistician will perform some variation of these steps:

• Define hypotheses.
• Collect and/or use the sample data to determine the correct distribution to use.
• Calculate test statistic.
• Make a decision.
• Write a conclusion.

Defining your hypotheses

The actual test begins by considering two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.

The null hypothesis ( H 0 ) is often a statement of the accepted historical value or norm. This is your starting point that you must assume from the beginning in order to show an effect exists.

The alternative hypothesis ( H a ) is a claim about the population that is contradictory to H 0 and what we conclude when we reject H 0 .

Since the null and alternative hypotheses are contradictory, you must examine evidence to decide if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or not. The evidence is in the form of sample data.

After you have determined which hypothesis the sample supports, you make a decision . There are two options for a decision. They are “reject H 0 ” if the sample information favors the alternative hypothesis or “do not reject H 0 ” or “decline to reject H 0 ” if the sample information is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis.

The following table shows mathematical symbols used in H 0 and H a :

NOTE: H 0 always has a symbol with an equal in it. H a never has a symbol with an equal in it. The choice of symbol in the alternative hypothesis depends on the wording of the hypothesis test. Despite this, many researchers may use =, ≤, or ≥ in the null hypothesis. This practice is acceptable because our only decision is to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

We want to test whether the mean GPA of students in American colleges is 2.0 (out of 4.0). The null hypothesis is: H 0 : μ = 2.0. What is the alternative hypothesis?

A medical trial is conducted to test whether or not a new medicine reduces cholesterol by 25%. State the null and alternative hypotheses.

Using the Sample to Test the Null Hypothesis

Once you have defined your hypotheses, the next step in the process is to collect sample data. In a classroom context, the data or summary statistics will usually be given to you.

Then you will have to determine the correct distribution to perform the hypothesis test, given the assumptions you are able to make about the situation. Right now, we are demonstrating these ideas in a test for a mean when the population standard deviation is known using the z distribution. We will see other scenarios in the future.

Calculating a Test Statistic

Next you will start evaluating the data. This begins with calculating your test statistic , which is a measure of the distance between what you observed and what you are assuming to be true. In this context, your test statistic, z ο , quantifies the number of standard deviations between the sample mean, x, and the population mean, µ . Calculating the test statistic is analogous to the previously discussed process of standardizing observations with z -scores:

where µ o   is the value assumed to be true in the null hypothesis.

Making a Decision

Once you have your test statistic, there are two methods to use it to make your decision:

• Critical value method (discussed further in later chapters)
• p -value method (our current focus)

p -Value Method

To find a p -value , we use the test statistic to calculate the actual probability of getting the test result. Formally, the p -value is the probability that, if the null hypothesis is true, the results from another randomly selected sample will be as extreme or more extreme as the results obtained from the given sample.

A large p -value calculated from the data indicates that we should not reject the null hypothesis. The smaller the p -value, the more unlikely the outcome and the stronger the evidence is against the null hypothesis. We would reject the null hypothesis if the evidence is strongly against it.

Draw a graph that shows the p -value. The hypothesis test is easier to perform if you use a graph because you see the problem more clearly.

Suppose a baker claims that his bread height is more than 15 cm on average. Several of his customers do not believe him. To persuade his customers that he is right, the baker decides to do a hypothesis test. He bakes ten loaves of bread. The mean height of the sample loaves is 17 cm. The baker knows from baking hundreds of loaves of bread that the standard deviation for the height is 0.5 cm and the distribution of heights is normal.

The null hypothesis could be H 0 : μ ≤ 15.

The alternate hypothesis is H a : μ > 15.

The words “is more than” calls for the use of the > symbol, so “ μ > 15″ goes into the alternate hypothesis. The null hypothesis must contradict the alternate hypothesis.

Suppose the null hypothesis is true (the mean height of the loaves is no more than 15 cm). Then, is the mean height (17 cm) calculated from the sample unexpectedly large? The hypothesis test works by asking how unlikely the sample mean would be if the null hypothesis were true. The graph shows how far out the sample mean is on the normal curve. The p -value is the probability that, if we were to take other samples, any other sample mean would fall at least as far out as 17 cm.

This means that the p -value is the probability that a sample mean is the same or greater than 17 cm when the population mean is, in fact, 15 cm. We can calculate this probability using the normal distribution for means.

A p -value of approximately zero tells us that it is highly unlikely that a loaf of bread rises no more than 15 cm on average. That is, almost 0% of all loaves of bread would be at least as high as 17 cm purely by CHANCE had the population mean height really been 15 cm. Because the outcome of 17 cm is so unlikely (meaning it is happening NOT by chance alone), we conclude that the evidence is strongly against the null hypothesis that the mean height would be at most 15 cm. There is sufficient evidence that the true mean height for the population of the baker’s loaves of bread is greater than 15 cm.

A normal distribution has a standard deviation of one. We want to verify a claim that the mean is greater than 12. A sample of 36 is taken with a sample mean of 12.5.

Find the p -value.

Decision and Conclusion

A systematic way to decide whether to reject or not reject the null hypothesis is to compare the p -value and a preset or preconceived α (also called a significance level ). A preset α is the probability of a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true). It may or may not be given to you at the beginning of the problem. If there is no given preconceived α , then use α = 0.05.

When you make a decision to reject or not reject H 0 , do as follows:

• If α > p -value, reject H 0 . The results of the sample data are statistically significant . You can say there is sufficient evidence to conclude that H 0 is an incorrect belief and that the alternative hypothesis, H a , may be correct.
• If α ≤ p -value, fail to reject H 0 . The results of the sample data are not significant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the alternative hypothesis, H a , may be correct.

After you make your decision, write a thoughtful conclusion in the context of the scenario incorporating the hypotheses.

NOTE: When you “do not reject H 0 ,” it does not mean that you should believe that H 0 is true. It simply means that the sample data have failed to provide sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt about the truthfulness of H o .

When using the p -value to evaluate a hypothesis test, the following rhymes can come in handy:

If the p -value is low, the null must go.

If the p -value is high, the null must fly.

This memory aid relates a p -value less than the established alpha (“the p -value is low”) as rejecting the null hypothesis and, likewise, relates a p -value higher than the established alpha (“the p -value is high”) as not rejecting the null hypothesis.

Fill in the blanks:

• Reject the null hypothesis when              .
• The results of the sample data             .
• Do not reject the null when hypothesis when             .

It’s a Boy Genetics Labs claim their procedures improve the chances of a boy being born. The results for a test of a single population proportion are as follows:

• H 0 : p = 0.50, H a : p > 0.50
• p -value = 0.025

Interpret the results and state a conclusion in simple, non-technical terms.

Click here for more multimedia resources, including podcasts, videos, lecture notes, and worked examples.

Figure References

Figure 5.11: Alora Griffiths (2019). dalmatian puppy near man in blue shorts kneeling. Unsplash license. https://unsplash.com/photos/7aRQZtLsvqw

Figure 5.13: Kindred Grey (2020). Bread height probability. CC BY-SA 4.0.

A decision-making procedure for determining whether sample evidence supports a hypothesis

The claim that is assumed to be true and is tested in a hypothesis test

A working hypothesis that is contradictory to the null hypothesis

A measure of the difference between observations and the hypothesized (or claimed) value

The probability that an event will occur, assuming the null hypothesis is true

Probability that a true null hypothesis will be rejected, also known as type I error and denoted by α

Finding sufficient evidence that the observed effect is not just due to variability, often from rejecting the null hypothesis

Significant Statistics Copyright © 2024 by John Morgan Russell, OpenStaxCollege, OpenIntro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation

Luis carlos silva-ayçaguer.

1 Centro Nacional de Investigación de Ciencias Médicas, La Habana, Cuba

Patricio Suárez-Gil

2 Unidad de Investigación. Hospital de Cabueñes, Servicio de Salud del Principado de Asturias (SESPA), Gijón, Spain

Ana Fernández-Somoano

3 CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain and Departamento de Medicina, Unidad de Epidemiología Molecular del Instituto Universitario de Oncología, Universidad de Oviedo, Spain

The null hypothesis significance test (NHST) is the most frequently used statistical method, although its inferential validity has been widely criticized since its introduction. In 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) warned against sole reliance on NHST to substantiate study conclusions and suggested supplementary use of confidence intervals (CI). Our objective was to evaluate the extent and quality in the use of NHST and CI, both in English and Spanish language biomedical publications between 1995 and 2006, taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on the accuracy of the interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.

Original articles published in three English and three Spanish biomedical journals in three fields (General Medicine, Clinical Specialties and Epidemiology - Public Health) were considered for this study. Papers published in 1995-1996, 2000-2001, and 2005-2006 were selected through a systematic sampling method. After excluding the purely descriptive and theoretical articles, analytic studies were evaluated for their use of NHST with P-values and/or CI for interpretation of statistical "significance" and "relevance" in study conclusions.

Among 1,043 original papers, 874 were selected for detailed review. The exclusive use of P-values was less frequent in English language publications as well as in Public Health journals; overall such use decreased from 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. While the use of CI increased over time, the "significance fallacy" (to equate statistical and substantive significance) appeared very often, mainly in journals devoted to clinical specialties (81%). In papers originally written in English and Spanish, 15% and 10%, respectively, mentioned statistical significance in their conclusions.

Conclusions

Overall, results of our review show some improvements in statistical management of statistical results, but further efforts by scholars and journal editors are clearly required to move the communication toward ICMJE advices, especially in the clinical setting, which seems to be imperative among publications in Spanish.

The null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) has been the most widely used statistical approach in health research over the past 80 years. Its origins dates back to 1279 [ 1 ] although it was in the second decade of the twentieth century when the statistician Ronald Fisher formally introduced the concept of "null hypothesis" H 0 - which, generally speaking, establishes that certain parameters do not differ from each other. He was the inventor of the "P-value" through which it could be assessed [ 2 ]. Fisher's P-value is defined as a conditional probability calculated using the results of a study. Specifically, the P-value is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. The Fisherian significance testing theory considered the p-value as an index to measure the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis in a single experiment. The father of NHST never endorsed, however, the inflexible application of the ultimately subjective threshold levels almost universally adopted later on (although the introduction of the 0.05 has his paternity also).

A few years later, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson considered the Fisherian approach inefficient, and in 1928 they published an article [ 3 ] that would provide the theoretical basis of what they called hypothesis statistical testing . The Neyman-Pearson approach is based on the notion that one out of two choices has to be taken: accept the null hypothesis taking the information as a reference based on the information provided, or reject it in favor of an alternative one. Thus, one can incur one of two types of errors: a Type I error, if the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true, and a Type II error, if the null hypothesis is accepted when it is actually false. They established a rule to optimize the decision process, using the p-value introduced by Fisher, by setting the maximum frequency of errors that would be admissible.

The null hypothesis statistical testing, as applied today, is a hybrid coming from the amalgamation of the two methods [ 4 ]. As a matter of fact, some 15 years later, both procedures were combined to give rise to the nowadays widespread use of an inferential tool that would satisfy none of the statisticians involved in the original controversy. The present method essentially goes as follows: given a null hypothesis, an estimate of the parameter (or parameters) is obtained and used to create statistics whose distribution, under H 0 , is known. With these data the P-value is computed. Finally, the null hypothesis is rejected when the obtained P-value is smaller than a certain comparative threshold (usually 0.05) and it is not rejected if P is larger than the threshold.

The first reservations about the validity of the method began to appear around 1940, when some statisticians censured the logical roots and practical convenience of Fisher's P-value [ 5 ]. Significance tests and P-values have repeatedly drawn the attention and criticism of many authors over the past 70 years, who have kept questioning its epistemological legitimacy as well as its practical value. What remains in spite of these criticisms is the lasting legacy of researchers' unwillingness to eradicate or reform these methods.

Although there are very comprehensive works on the topic [ 6 ], we list below some of the criticisms most universally accepted by specialists.

• The P-values are used as a tool to make decisions in favor of or against a hypothesis. What really may be relevant, however, is to get an effect size estimate (often the difference between two values) rather than rendering dichotomous true/false verdicts [ 7 - 11 ].

• The P-value is a conditional probability of the data, provided that some assumptions are met, but what really interests the investigator is the inverse probability: what degree of validity can be attributed to each of several competing hypotheses, once that certain data have been observed [ 12 ].

• The two elements that affect the results, namely the sample size and the magnitude of the effect, are inextricably linked in the value of p and we can always get a lower P-value by increasing the sample size. Thus, the conclusions depend on a factor completely unrelated to the reality studied (i.e. the available resources, which in turn determine the sample size) [ 13 , 14 ].

• Those who defend the NHST often assert the objective nature of that test, but the process is actually far from being so. NHST does not ensure objectivity. This is reflected in the fact that we generally operate with thresholds that are ultimately no more than conventions, such as 0.01 or 0.05. What is more, for many years their use has unequivocally demonstrated the inherent subjectivity that goes with the concept of P, regardless of how it will be used later [ 15 - 17 ].

• In practice, the NHST is limited to a binary response sorting hypotheses into "true" and "false" or declaring "rejection" or "no rejection", without demanding a reasonable interpretation of the results, as has been noted time and again for decades. This binary orthodoxy validates categorical thinking, which results in a very simplistic view of scientific activity that induces researchers not to test theories about the magnitude of effect sizes [ 18 - 20 ].

Despite the weakness and shortcomings of the NHST, they are frequently taught as if they were the key inferential statistical method or the most appropriate, or even the sole unquestioned one. The statistical textbooks, with only some exceptions, do not even mention the NHST controversy. Instead, the myth is spread that NHST is the "natural" final action of scientific inference and the only procedure for testing hypotheses. However, relevant specialists and important regulators of the scientific world advocate avoiding them.

Taking especially into account that NHST does not offer the most important information (i.e. the magnitude of an effect of interest, and the precision of the estimate of the magnitude of that effect), many experts recommend the reporting of point estimates of effect sizes with confidence intervals as the appropriate representation of the inherent uncertainty linked to empirical studies [ 21 - 25 ]. Since 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, known as the Vancouver Group ) incorporates the following recommendation to authors of manuscripts submitted to medical journals: "When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P-values, which fail to convey important information about effect size" [ 26 ].

As will be shown, the use of confidence intervals (CI), occasionally accompanied by P-values, is recommended as a more appropriate method for reporting results. Some authors have noted several shortcomings of CI long ago [ 27 ]. In spite of the fact that calculating CI could be complicated indeed, and that their interpretation is far from simple [ 28 , 29 ], authors are urged to use them because they provide much more information than the NHST and do not merit most of its criticisms of NHST [ 30 ]. While some have proposed different options (for instance, likelihood-based information theoretic methods [ 31 ], and the Bayesian inferential paradigm [ 32 ]), confidence interval estimation of effect sizes is clearly the most widespread alternative approach.

Although twenty years have passed since the ICMJE began to disseminate such recommendations, systematically ignored by the vast majority of textbooks and hardly incorporated in medical publications [ 33 ], it is interesting to examine the extent to which the NHST is used in articles published in medical journals during recent years, in order to identify what is still lacking in the process of eradicating the widespread ceremonial use that is made of statistics in health research [ 34 ]. Furthermore, it is enlightening in this context to examine whether these patterns differ between English- and Spanish-speaking worlds and, if so, to see if the changes in paradigms are occurring more slowly in Spanish-language publications. In such a case we would offer various suggestions.

In addition to assessing the adherence to the above cited statistical recommendation proposed by ICMJE relative to the use of P-values, we consider it of particular interest to estimate the extent to which the significance fallacy is present, an inertial deficiency that consists of attributing -- explicitly or not -- qualitative importance or practical relevance to the found differences simply because statistical significance was obtained.

Many authors produce misleading statements such as "a significant effect was (or was not) found" when it should be said that "a statistically significant difference was (or was not) found". A detrimental consequence of this equivalence is that some authors believe that finding out whether there is "statistical significance" or not is the aim, so that this term is then mentioned in the conclusions [ 35 ]. This means virtually nothing, except that it indicates that the author is letting a computer do the thinking. Since the real research questions are never statistical ones, the answers cannot be statistical either. Accordingly, the conversion of the dichotomous outcome produced by a NHST into a conclusion is another manifestation of the mentioned fallacy.

The general objective of the present study is to evaluate the extent and quality of use of NHST and CI, both in English- and in Spanish-language biomedical publications, between 1995 and 2006 taking into account the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, with particular focus on accuracy regarding interpretation of statistical significance and the validity of conclusions.

We reviewed the original articles from six journals, three in English and three in Spanish, over three disjoint periods sufficiently separated from each other (1995-1996, 2000-2001, 2005-2006) as to properly describe the evolution in prevalence of the target features along the selected periods.

The selection of journals was intended to get representation for each of the following three thematic areas: clinical specialties ( Obstetrics & Gynecology and Revista Española de Cardiología) ; Public Health and Epidemiology ( International Journal of Epidemiology and Atención Primaria) and the area of general and internal medicine ( British Medical Journal and Medicina Clínica ). Five of the selected journals formally endorsed ICMJE guidelines; the remaining one ( Revista Española de Cardiología ) suggests observing ICMJE demands in relation with specific issues. We attempted to capture journal diversity in the sample by selecting general and specialty journals with different degrees of influence, resulting from their impact factors in 2007, which oscillated between 1.337 (MC) and 9.723 (BMJ). No special reasons guided us to choose these specific journals, but we opted for journals with rather large paid circulations. For instance, the Spanish Cardiology Journal is the one with the largest impact factor among the fourteen Spanish Journals devoted to clinical specialties that have impact factor and Obstetrics & Gynecology has an outstanding impact factor among the huge number of journals available for selection.

It was decided to take around 60 papers for each biennium and journal, which means a total of around 1,000 papers. As recently suggested [ 36 , 37 ], this number was not established using a conventional method, but by means of a purposive and pragmatic approach in choosing the maximum sample size that was feasible.

Systematic sampling in phases [ 38 ] was used in applying a sampling fraction equal to 60/N, where N is the number of articles, in each of the 18 subgroups defined by crossing the six journals and the three time periods. Table ​ Table1 1 lists the population size and the sample size for each subgroup. While the sample within each subgroup was selected with equal probability, estimates based on other subsets of articles (defined across time periods, areas, or languages) are based on samples with various selection probabilities. Proper weights were used to take into account the stratified nature of the sampling in these cases.

Sizes of the populations (and the samples) for selected journals and periods.

G&O: Obstetrics & Gynecology; REC: Revista Española de Cardiología; BMJ: British Medical Journal; MC: Medicina Clínica; IJE: International Journal of Epidemiology; AP: Atención Primaria .

Forty-nine of the 1,092 selected papers were eliminated because, although the section of the article in which they were assigned could suggest they were originals, detailed scrutiny revealed that in some cases they were not. The sample, therefore, consisted of 1,043 papers. Each of them was classified into one of three categories: (1) purely descriptive papers, those designed to review or characterize the state of affairs as it exists at present, (2) analytical papers, or (3) articles that address theoretical, methodological or conceptual issues. An article was regarded as analytical if it seeks to explain the reasons behind a particular occurrence by discovering causal relationships or, even if self-classified as descriptive, it was carried out to assess cause-effect associations among variables. We classify as theoretical or methodological those articles that do not handle empirical data as such, and focus instead on proposing or assessing research methods. We identified 169 papers as purely descriptive or theoretical, which were therefore excluded from the sample. Figure ​ Figure1 1 presents a flow chart showing the process for determining eligibility for inclusion in the sample.

Flow chart of the selection process for eligible papers .

To estimate the adherence to ICMJE recommendations, we considered whether the papers used P-values, confidence intervals, and both simultaneously. By "the use of P-values" we mean that the article contains at least one P-value, explicitly mentioned in the text or at the bottom of a table, or that it reports that an effect was considered as statistically significant . It was deemed that an article uses CI if it explicitly contained at least one confidence interval, but not when it only provides information that could allow its computation (usually by presenting both the estimate and the standard error). Probability intervals provided in Bayesian analysis were classified as confidence intervals (although conceptually they are not the same) since what is really of interest here is whether or not the authors quantify the findings and present them with appropriate indicators of the margin of error or uncertainty.

In addition we determined whether the "Results" section of each article attributed the status of "significant" to an effect on the sole basis of the outcome of a NHST (i.e., without clarifying that it is strictly statistical significance). Similarly, we examined whether the term "significant" (applied to a test) was mistakenly used as synonymous with substantive , relevant or important . The use of the term "significant effect" when it is only appropriate as a reference to a "statistically significant difference," can be considered a direct expression of the significance fallacy [ 39 ] and, as such, constitutes one way to detect the problem in a specific paper.

We also assessed whether the "Conclusions," which sometimes appear as a separate section in the paper or otherwise in the last paragraphs of the "Discussion" section mentioned statistical significance and, if so, whether any of such mentions were no more than an allusion to results.

To perform these analyses we considered both the abstract and the body of the article. To assess the handling of the significance issue, however, only the body of the manuscript was taken into account.

The information was collected by four trained observers. Every paper was assigned to two reviewers. Disagreements were discussed and, if no agreement was reached, a third reviewer was consulted to break the tie and so moderate the effect of subjectivity in the assessment.

In order to assess the reliability of the criteria used for the evaluation of articles and to effect a convergence of criteria among the reviewers, a pilot study of 20 papers from each of three journals ( Clinical Medicine , Primary Care , and International Journal of Epidemiology) was performed. The results of this pilot study were satisfactory. Our results are reported using percentages together with their corresponding confidence intervals. For sampling errors estimations, used to obtain confidence intervals, we weighted the data using the inverse of the probability of selection of each paper, and we took into account the complex nature of the sample design. These analyses were carried out with EPIDAT [ 40 ], a specialized computer program that is readily available.

A total of 1,043 articles were reviewed, of which 874 (84%) were found to be analytic, while the remainders were purely descriptive or of a theoretical and methodological nature. Five of them did not employ either P-values or CI. Consequently, the analysis was made using the remaining 869 articles.

Use of NHST and confidence intervals

The percentage of articles that use only P-values, without even mentioning confidence intervals, to report their results has declined steadily throughout the period analyzed (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). The percentage decreased from approximately 41% in 1995-1996 to 21% in 2005-2006. However, it does not differ notably among journals of different languages, as shown by the estimates and confidence intervals of the respective percentages. Concerning thematic areas, it is highly surprising that most of the clinical articles ignore the recommendations of ICMJE, while for general and internal medicine papers such a problem is only present in one in five papers, and in the area of Public Health and Epidemiology it occurs only in one out of six. The use of CI alone (without P-values) has increased slightly across the studied periods (from 9% to 13%), but it is five times more prevalent in Public Health and Epidemiology journals than in Clinical ones, where it reached a scanty 3%.

Prevalence of NHST and CI across periods, languages and research areas.

CI: Confidence Interval

Ambivalent handling of the significance

While the percentage of articles referring implicitly or explicitly to significance in an ambiguous or incorrect way - that is, incurring the significance fallacy -- seems to decline steadily, the prevalence of this problem exceeds 69%, even in the most recent period. This percentage was almost the same for articles written in Spanish and in English, but it was notably higher in the Clinical journals (81%) compared to the other journals, where the problem occurs in approximately 7 out of 10 papers (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). The kappa coefficient for measuring agreement between observers concerning the presence of the "significance fallacy" was 0.78 (CI95%: 0.62 to 0.93), which is considered acceptable in the scale of Landis and Koch [ 41 ].

Frequency of occurrence of the significance fallacy across periods, languages and research areas.

Reference to numerical results or statistical significance in Conclusions

The percentage of papers mentioning a numerical finding as a conclusion is similar in the three periods analyzed (Table ​ (Table4). 4 ). Concerning languages, this percentage is nearly twice as large for Spanish journals as for those published in English (approximately 21% versus 12%). And, again, the highest percentage (16%) corresponded to clinical journals.

Frequency of use of numerical results in conclusions across periods, languages and research areas.

A similar pattern is observed, although with less pronounced differences, in references to the outcome of the NHST (significant or not) in the conclusions (Table ​ (Table5). 5 ). The percentage of articles that introduce the term in the "Conclusions" does not appreciably differ between articles written in Spanish and in English. Again, the area where this insufficiency is more often present (more than 15% of articles) is the Clinical area.

Frequency of presence of the term Significance (or statistical significance) in conclusions across periods, languages and research areas.

There are some previous studies addressing the degree to which researchers have moved beyond the ritualistic use of NHST to assess their hypotheses. This has been examined for areas such as biology [ 42 ], organizational research [ 43 ], or psychology [ 44 - 47 ]. However, to our knowledge, no recent research has explored the pattern of use P-values and CI in medical literature and, in any case, no efforts have been made to study this problem in a way that takes into account different languages and specialties.

At first glance it is puzzling that, after decades of questioning and technical warnings, and after twenty years since the inception of ICMJE recommendation to avoid NHST, they continue being applied ritualistically and mindlessly as the dominant doctrine. Not long ago, when researchers did not observe statistically significant effects, they were unlikely to write them up and to report "negative" findings, since they knew there was a high probability that the paper would be rejected. This has changed a bit: editors are more prone to judge all findings as potentially eloquent. This is probably the frequent denunciations of the tendency for those papers presenting a significant positive result to receive more favorable publication decisions than equally well-conducted ones that report a negative or null result, the so-called publication bias [ 48 - 50 ]. This new openness is consistent with the fact that if the substantive question addressed is really relevant, the answer (whether positive or negative) will also be relevant.

Consequently, even though it was not an aim of our study, we found many examples in which statistical significance was not obtained. However, many of those negative results were reported with a comment of this type: " The results did not show a significant difference between groups; however, with a larger sample size, this difference would have probably proved to be significant ". The problem with this statement is that it is true; more specifically, it will always be true and it is, therefore, sterile. It is not fortuitous that one never encounters the opposite, and equally tautological, statement: " A significant difference between groups has been detected; however, perhaps with a smaller sample size, this difference would have proved to be not significant" . Such a double standard is itself an unequivocal sign of the ritual application of NHST.

Although the declining rates of NHST usage show that, gradually, ICMJE and similar recommendations are having a positive impact, most of the articles in the clinical setting still considered NHST as the final arbiter of the research process. Moreover, it appears that the improvement in the situation is mostly formal, and the percentage of articles that fall into the significance fallacy is huge.

The contradiction between what has been conceptually recommended and the common practice is sensibly less acute in the area of Epidemiology and Public Health, but the same pattern was evident everywhere in the mechanical way of applying significance tests. Nevertheless, the clinical journals remain the most unmoved by the recommendations.

The ICMJE recommendations are not cosmetic statements but substantial ones, and the vigorous exhortations made by outstanding authorities [ 51 ] are not mere intellectual exercises due to ingenious and inopportune methodologists, but rather they are very serious epistemological warnings.

In some cases, the role of CI is not as clearly suitable (e.g. when estimating multiple regression coefficients or because effect sizes are not available for some research designs [ 43 , 52 ]), but when it comes to estimating, for example, an odds ratio or a rates difference, the advantage of using CI instead of P values is very clear, since in such cases it is obvious that the goal is to assess what has been called the "effect size."

The inherent resistance to change old paradigms and practices that have been entrenched for decades is always high. Old habits die hard. The estimates and trends outlined are entirely consistent with Alvan Feinstein's warning 25 years ago: "Because the history of medical research also shows a long tradition of maintaining loyalty to established doctrines long after the doctrines had been discredited, or shown to be valueless, we cannot expect a sudden change in this medical policy merely because it has been denounced by leading connoisseurs of statistics [ 53 ]".

It is possible, however, that the nature of the problem has an external explanation: it is likely that some editors prefer to "avoid troubles" with the authors and vice versa, thus resorting to the most conventional procedures. Many junior researchers believe that it is wise to avoid long back-and-forth discussions with reviewers and editors. In general, researchers who want to appear in print and survive in a publish-or-perish environment are motivated by force, fear, and expedience in their use of NHST [ 54 ]. Furthermore, it is relatively natural that simple researchers use NHST when they take into account that some theoretical objectors have used this statistical analysis in empirical studies, published after the appearance of their own critiques [ 55 ].

For example, Journal of the American Medical Association published a bibliometric study [ 56 ] discussing the impact of statisticians' co-authorship of medical papers on publication decisions by two major high-impact journals: British Medical Journal and Annals of Internal Medicine . The data analysis is characterized by methodological orthodoxy. The authors just use chi-square tests without any reference to CI, although the NHST had been repeatedly criticized over the years by two of the authors:

Douglas Altman, an early promoter of confidence intervals as an alternative [ 57 ], and Steve Goodman, a critic of NHST from a Bayesian perspective [ 58 ]. Individual authors, however, cannot be blamed for broader institutional problems and systemic forces opposed to change.

The present effort is certainly partial in at least two ways: it is limited to only six specific journals and to three biennia. It would be therefore highly desirable to improve it by studying the problem in a more detailed way (especially by reviewing more journals with different profiles), and continuing the review of prevailing patterns and trends.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

LCSA designed the study, wrote the paper and supervised the whole process; PSG coordinated the data extraction and carried out statistical analysis, as well as participated in the editing process; AFS extracted the data and participated in the first stage of statistical analysis; all authors contributed to and revised the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/44/prepub

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tania Iglesias-Cabo and Vanesa Alvarez-González for their help with the collection of empirical data and their participation in an earlier version of the paper. The manuscript has benefited greatly from thoughtful, constructive feedback by Carlos Campillo-Artero, Tom Piazza and Ann Séror.

• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: hypothesis tests and P values. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009; 33 :81–86. doi: 10.1152/advan.90218.2008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; 1925. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyman J, Pearson E. On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference. Biometrika. 1928; 20 :175–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva LC. Los laberintos de la investigación biomédica. En defensa de la racionalidad para la ciencia del siglo XXI. Madrid: Díaz de Santos; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkson J. Test of significance considered as evidence. J Am Stat Assoc. 1942; 37 :325–335. doi: 10.2307/2279000. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickerson RS. Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5 :241–301. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozeboom WW. The fallacy of the null hypothesissignificance test. Psychol Bull. 1960; 57 :418–428. doi: 10.1037/h0042040. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callahan JL, Reio TG. Making subjective judgments in quantitative studies: The importance of using effect sizes and confidenceintervals. HRD Quarterly. 2006; 17 :159–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 2007; 82 :591–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breaugh JA. Effect size estimation: factors to consider and mistakes to avoid. J Manage. 2003; 29 :79–97. doi: 10.1177/014920630302900106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson B. What future quantitative social science research could look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educ Res. 2002; 31 :25–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews RA. Significance levels for the assessment of anomalous phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1999; 13 :1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage IR. Nonparametric statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1957; 52 :332–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva LC, Benavides A, Almenara J. El péndulo bayesiano: Crónica de una polémica estadística. Llull. 2002; 25 :109–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN, Royall R. Evidence and scientific research. Am J Public Health. 1988; 78 :1568–1574. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.78.12.1568. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger JO, Berry DA. Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. Am Sci. 1988; 76 :159–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann Zool Fenn. 2009; 46 :311–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fidler F, Thomason N, Cumming G, Finch S, Leeman J. Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals but they can't make them think: Statistical reform lessons from Medicine. Psychol Sci. 2004; 15 :119–126. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502008.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balluerka N, Vergara AI, Arnau J. Calculating the main alternatives to null-hypothesis-significance testing in between-subject experimental designs. Psicothema. 2009; 21 :141–151. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cumming G, Fidler F. Confidence intervals: Better answers to better questions. J Psychol. 2009; 217 :15–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones LV, Tukey JW. A sensible formulation of the significance test. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5 :411–414. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.411. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon P. The p-value fallacy and how to avoid it. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003; 57 :189–202. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007; 82 :591–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandstaetter E. Confidence intervals as an alternative to significance testing. MPR-Online. 2001; 4 :33–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masson ME, Loftus GR. Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Can J Exp Psychol. 2003; 57 :203–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. http://www.icmje.org Update October 2008. Accessed July 11, 2009. [ PubMed ]
• Feinstein AR. P-Values and Confidence Intervals: two sides of the same unsatisfactory coin. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51 :355–360. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00295-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haller H, Kraus S. Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers? MRP-Online. 2002; 7 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Vitouch O. In: The Handbook of Methodology for the Social Sciences. Kaplan D, editor. Chapter 21. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2004. The null ritual: What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask; pp. 391–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curran-Everett D, Taylor S, Kafadar K. Fundamental concepts in statistics: elucidation and illustration. J Appl Physiol. 1998; 85 :775–786. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Royall RM. Statistical evidence: a likelihood paradigm. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN. Of P values and Bayes: A modest proposal. Epidemiology. 2001; 12 :295–297. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200105000-00006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarria M, Silva LC. Tests of statistical significance in three biomedical journals: a critical review. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2004; 15 :300–306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva LC. Una ceremonia estadística para identificar factores de riesgo. Salud Colectiva. 2005; 1 :322–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN. Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics 1: The p Value Fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130 :995–1004. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised clinical trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005; 365 :1348–1353. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med. 2010; 8 :17. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-17. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva LC. Diseño razonado de muestras para la investigación sanitaria. Madrid: Díaz de Santos; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett ML, Mathisen A. Tyranny of the p-value: The conflict between statistical significance and common sense. J Dent Res. 1997; 76 :534–536. doi: 10.1177/00220345970760010201. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santiago MI, Hervada X, Naveira G, Silva LC, Fariñas H, Vázquez E, Bacallao J, Mújica OJ. [The Epidat program: uses and perspectives] [letter] Pan Am J Public Health. 2010; 27 :80–82. Spanish. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33 :159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fidler F, Burgman MA, Cumming G, Buttrose R, Thomason N. Impact of criticism of null-hypothesis significance testing on statistical reporting practices in conservation biology. Conserv Biol. 2005; 20 :1539–1544. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00525.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline RB. Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007; 31 :295–298. doi: 10.1152/advan.00022.2007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard R, Parsa AR, Luthy MR. The spread of statistical significance testing: The case of the Journal of Applied Psychology. Theor Psychol. 1997; 7 :545–554. doi: 10.1177/0959354397074006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vacha-Haase T, Nilsson JE, Reetz DR, Lance TS, Thompson B. Reporting practices and APA editorial policies regarding statistical significance and effect size. Theor Psychol. 2000; 10 :413–425. doi: 10.1177/0959354300103006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger J. Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method. Am Psychol. 2001; 56 :16–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.1.16. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation. PLoS Med. 2008; 5 :e217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sridharan L, Greenland L. Editorial policies and publication bias the importance of negative studies. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169 :1022–1023. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falagas ME, Alexiou VG. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2008; 56 :223–226. doi: 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman K. Writing for Epidemiology. Epidemiology. 1998; 9 :98–104. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199805000-00019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fidler F. The fifth edition of the APA publication manual: Why its statistics recommendations are so controversial. Educ Psychol Meas. 2002; 62 :749–770. doi: 10.1177/001316402236876. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology: The architecture of clinical research. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orlitzky M. Institutionalized dualism: statistical significance testing as myth and ceremony. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1415926 Accessed Feb 8, 2010.
• Greenwald AG, González R, Harris RJ, Guthrie D. Effect sizes and p-value. What should be reported and what should be replicated? Psychophysiology. 1996; 33 :175–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02121.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. J Am Med Assoc. 2002; 287 :2817–2820. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2817. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner MJ, Altman DJ. Statistics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. London: BMJ; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN. P Values, Hypothesis Tests and Likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate. Am J Epidemiol. 1993; 137 :485–496. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]