Lantz Björn
University of Borås, Borås, Sweden.
Scand J Caring Sci. 2013 Jun;27(2):487-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01052.x. Epub 2012 Jul 31.
Significance in the statistical sense has little to do with significance in the common practical sense. Statistical significance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for practical significance. Hence, results that are extremely statistically significant may be highly nonsignificant in practice. The degree of practical significance is generally determined by the size of the observed effect, not the p-value. The results of studies based on large samples are often characterized by extreme statistical significance despite small or even trivial effect sizes. Interpreting such results as significant in practice without further analysis is referred to as the large sample size fallacy in this article.
The aim of this article is to explore the relevance of the large sample size fallacy in contemporary nursing research.
Relatively few nursing articles display explicit measures of observed effect sizes or include a qualitative discussion of observed effect sizes. Statistical significance is often treated as an end in itself.
Effect sizes should generally be calculated and presented along with p-values for statistically significant results, and observed effect sizes should be discussed qualitatively through direct and explicit comparisons with the effects in related literature.
统计学意义与通常实际意义上的显著性几乎没有关系。统计显著性是实际显著性的必要但非充分条件。因此,在统计学上极具显著性的结果在实际中可能毫无显著性可言。实际显著性的程度通常由观察到的效应大小决定,而非p值。基于大样本的研究结果往往具有极高的统计显著性,尽管效应大小很小甚至微不足道。在本文中,将此类结果在未经进一步分析的情况下就解释为在实际中具有显著性,被称为大样本量谬误。
本文旨在探讨大样本量谬误在当代护理研究中的相关性。
相对较少的护理文章展示了观察到的效应大小的明确度量,或者对观察到的效应大小进行定性讨论。统计显著性常常被视为目的本身。
对于具有统计显著性的结果,通常应计算并呈现效应大小以及p值,并且应通过与相关文献中的效应进行直接和明确的比较,对观察到的效应大小进行定性讨论。