5
$\begingroup$

I have two more questions. Why Statsoft's textbook says that

the p-value represents the probability of error that is involved in accepting our observed result as valid

whereas Wikipedia gives a slightly different definition:

p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true

Wikipedia warns us against confusing Fisher's p-value criteria with Pearson's Type I error (probability of taking a wrong decision). I read that statsoft's definition falls into the Type I fallacy. Am I wrong? Can you explain how these definitions related?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The link to the textbook is dead. That is precisely why it is always a good idea to include a full reference. $\endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Jan 4, 2021 at 8:47

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14
$\begingroup$

The StatSoft definition is incorrect. (I know, a short answer, but sometimes there is no long answer).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's also really only centered on two population t-tests somehow. This whole explanation seems to be wrong and misleading. In fact I would stop using that textbook and probably the software as well. ugh $\endgroup$
    – IMA
    Jun 5, 2013 at 15:44
3
$\begingroup$

This is a helpful link.

More formally, if you observed a p-value that was less than 5%, you could say: "The probability of the available (or of even less likely) data, given that the null hypothesis is true, is less than 5%.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It is a convention that you post useful links in comments (I have upvoted you so that you can do that). In the answers, you extranct the information and answer question. that you fall into the same fallacy as StatSoft definition and confirm that definition whereas the first answer says it is false? Do you see any contradicitons? $\endgroup$
    – Val
    Jun 5, 2013 at 19:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I exactly understand your query. Are you asking me if I am contradicting StatSoft? Their answer is wrong, as Peter has mentioned above. Edit: The reason the StatSoft definition is wrong is because it is trying to get at the Neymen-Pearson approach to significance, which is different than the Fisherian approach (P-values). The correct, formal definition is the one I indicated above and the one by Wikipedia. (The papers elaborate more on this, definitely worth reading). $\endgroup$
    – Francisco Arceo
    Jun 5, 2013 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, excuse me for misreading it the first time. $\endgroup$
    – Val
    Jun 6, 2013 at 11:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.