Hello list members,
I have a question for you: Would you advocate "case 1" or "case 2" below (or do you have a preferred "case 3")?
Case 1.
If p is less than or equal to alpha, then reject null.
If p is greater than alpha, then fail to reject null.
Case 2.
If p is less than alpha, then reject null.
If p is greater than or equal to alpha, then fail to reject null.
As you can see, for completeness I'm asking for your thoughts about the highly unlikely (but possible) situation where p=alpha.
For example, when using an alpha level of .05, what would you do in the unlikely situation where the observed p-value is equal to .05 (i.e., alpha is set at .05 and the observed p=.05 to as many places as the computer prints out).
If you recommended case 1, I have a follow-up question about rounding: What observed p-value would you consider close enough to be considered "equal to .05" in the procedure? (The late Jacob Cohen offered a convention that a p-value of .00 to .05 was sufficiently small, but .051-1.00 was not sufficiently small to reject the null).
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Burke Johnson
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|