I've run a Kruskal Wallis test, and for some of the questions the p value is not significant. Would I report this in the same way as if it was significant, stating the df, test statistic and p-value? So it would be something like this a Kruskal Wallis test was conducted but the results were found not to be significant H(3) = 2.119, p>0.05 (or would I state the exact p value here (.548))
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
-
3$\begingroup$ Do not publish non-significant results. Otherwise, you'll bias publication bias. $\endgroup$ – Mark L. Stone Apr 1 '17 at 13:49
-
$\begingroup$ But publication bias isn't a good thing in itself? Anyway, I'm not 'publishing' the results so to speak, it's for my dissertation but thanks for your comment $\endgroup$ – Dragonfly Apr 1 '17 at 13:59
-
2$\begingroup$ Dragonfly, The comment by @Mark is tongue-in-cheek. Remember what day it is, too. BTW, your dissertation is worthless unless it's publishable. $\endgroup$ – whuber♦ Apr 1 '17 at 19:11
-
1$\begingroup$ Do report it in our thesis. And please do read Andrew Gelman's blog regulary: andrewgelman.com/?s=p+value . I disagree with @whuber - you may have good stuff in your thesis even if it's not publishable. If it's accepted you have your degree. $\endgroup$ – Ethan Bolker Apr 1 '17 at 23:57
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Yes, non-significant results are just as important as significant ones. If you are reporting any result, always include the df, test statistic, and p value. And in that case, you should state the exact p-value, rather than generalising to >0.05
-
$\begingroup$ Our answers agree and Conor is correct to point out that you should report the exact p-value if it is available. $\endgroup$ – Michael R. Chernick Apr 1 '17 at 13:34
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
If you are publishing a paper in the open literature, you should definitely report statistically insignificant results the same way you report statistical significant results. Otherwise you contribute to underreporting bias.
answered Apr 1 '17 at 13:32
