Continued misinterpretation of confidence intervals: response to Miller and Ulrich

Morey, Richard D. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9220-3179, Hoekstra, Rink, Rouder, Jeffrey N. and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan 2016. Continued misinterpretation of confidence intervals: response to Miller and Ulrich. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23 (1) , pp. 131-140. 10.3758/s13423-015-0955-8

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (306kB) | Preview

Abstract

Miller and Ulrich (2015) critique our claim (Hoekstra et al., Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157–1164, 2014), based on a survey given to researchers and students, of widespread misunderstanding of confidence intervals (CIs). They suggest that survey respondents may have interpreted the statements in the survey that we deemed incorrect in an idiosyncratic, but correct, way, thus calling into question the conclusion that the results indicate that respondents could not properly interpret CIs. Their alternative interpretations, while correct, cannot be deemed acceptable renderings of the questions in the survey due to the well-known reference class problem. Moreover, there is no support in the data for their contention that participants may have had their alternative interpretations in mind. Finally, their alternative interpretations are merely trivial restatements of the definition of a confidence interval, and have no implications for the location of a parameter.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Psychology
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Statistics; Bayesian statistics; Statistical inference
Publisher:	Springer
ISSN:	1069-9384
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	30 March 2016
Date of Acceptance:	15 September 2015
Last Modified:	06 May 2023 02:49
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/84471

Citation Data

Cited 19 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item