How doctors conceptualise P values: a mixed methods study



Publication Details

Tam, C. Wah Michael., Khan, A., Knight, A., Rhee, J., Price, K. & McLean, K. (2018). How doctors conceptualise P values: a mixed methods study. Australian Journal of General Practice, 47 (10), 705-710.

Link to publisher version (URL)

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Additional Publication Information

Abstract reproduced with permission from the RACGP


Background and objectives: Researchers and clinicians have been criticised for frequently misinterpreting and misusing P values. This study sought to understand how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and New Zealand conceptualise P values presented in the manner typically encountered in a medical publication.

Methods: This mixed-methods study used quantitative and qualitative questions embedded in an online questionnaire and delivered through an Australian and New Zealand GP-specific Facebook group in 2017. It included questions that elaborated on the participant's conceptualisation of 'P = 0.05' within a scenario and tested their P value interpretation ability and confidence.

Results: There were 247 participants who completed the questionnaire. Participant conceptualisations of P values were described using six thematic categories. The most common (and erroneous) conceptualisation was that P values numerically indicated a 'real-world probability'. No demographic factor, including research experience, seemed associated with better interpretation ability. A confidence-ability gap was detected.

Discussion: P value misunderstanding is pervasive and might be influenced by a few central misconceptions. Statistics education for clinicians should explicitly address the most common misconceptions.

This record is in the process of being updated. Please contact us for more information.



Link to publisher version (DOI)