Inconsistencies between reported test statistics and p‐values in two psychiatry journals
Open accessAbstract
A recent survey of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and Nature revealed that inconsistencies in reported statistics were common. We sought to replicate that survey in the psychiatry literature. We checked the consistency of reported t‐test, F‐test and χ2‐test values with their corresponding p‐values in the 2005 issues of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (ANZJP) and compared this with the issues of the ANZJP from 2000, and with a similar journal, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (APS). A reported p‐value was ‘inconsistent’ if it differed (at its reported number of decimal places) from our calculated p‐values (using three different software packages), which we based on the reported test statistic and degrees of freedom. Of the 546 results that we checked, 78 (14.3%) of the p‐values were inconsistent with the corresponding degrees of freedom and test statistic. Similar rates of inconsistency were found in APS and ANZJP, and when comparing the ANZJP between 2000 and 2005. The percentages of articles with at least one inconsistency were 8.5% for ANZJP 2005, 9.9% for ANZJP 2000 and 12.1% for APS. We conclude that inconsistencies in p‐values are common and may reflect errors of analysis and rounding, typographic errors or typesetting errors. Suggestions for reducing the occurrence of such inconsistencies are provided. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many reported p-values do not match their accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom.
“However, there is evidence that many reported p-values do not match their accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom (Bakker & Wicherts, 2011; Bakker & Wicherts, 2014; Berle & Starcevic, 2007; Caperos & Pardo, 2013; Garcia-Berthou & Alcaraz, 2004; Veldkamp, Nuijten, Dominguez-Alvarez, Van Assen, & Wicherts, 2014; Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011).”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle & Starcevic, 2007
The lowest percentage of articles with at least one gross inconsistency is 2.6% (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) and the highest is 20.5% (Veldkamp et al., 2014), with a median of 14.3%, 1.4 percentage points higher than the 12.9% found in the current study.
“Finally, the lowest percentage of articles with at least one gross inconsistency is 2.6 % (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) and the highest is 20.5 % (Veldkamp et al., 2014), with a median of 14.3 % (1.4 percentage points higher than the 12.9 % found in the current study).”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle & Starcevic, 2007
Berle and Starcevic (2007) included only exactly reported p-values.
“Berle and Starcevic (2007) included only exactly reported p-values”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle and Starcevic (2007)
The estimated percentage of inconsistent results varies considerably between studies, ranging from 4.3% (Wicherts et al., 2011) to 14.3% (Berle & Starcevic, 2007).
“Table 2 shows that the estimated percentage of inconsistent results can vary considerably between studies, ranging from 4.3 % of the results (Wicherts et al., 2011) to 14.3 % of the results (Berle & Starcevic, 2007).”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle & Starcevic, 2007
The percentage of articles with at least one inconsistency ranged from 10.1% (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) to 63.0% (Veldkamp et al., 2014), with a median of 46.7%, 2.9 percentage points lower than the estimated 49.6% in the current study.
“The percentage of articles with at least one inconsistency ranged from as low as 10.1 % (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) to as high as 63.0 % (Veldkamp et al., 2014), with a median of 46.7 % (2.9 percentage points lower than the estimated 49.6 % in the current study).”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle & Starcevic, 2007
Two studies evaluated p-values in the medical field (Garcia-Berthou & Alcaraz, 2004) and in psychiatry (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) instead of in psychology.
“two studies evaluated p-values in the medical field (Garcia-Berthou & Alcaraz, 2004) and in psychiatry (Berle & Starcevic, 2007) instead of in psychology.”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Berle & Starcevic, 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Berle, D., & Starcevic, V.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney Local Health District (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Berle, David
- ORCID
- Berle, David
- Venue
- International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 202-207
- ISSN
- 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-0657
- PMC
- PMC6878403
- OpenAlex
- W2004280596
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- statistical reporting errors, t-test, F-test, chi-square test, degrees of freedom, rounding errors, typographical errors, psychiatric journals
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Periodicals as Topic, Psychiatry, Quality Control, Research, Research Design, Software, Bias, Confidence Intervals, Editorial Policies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
