Cited by 390Statistics Education and MethodologiesData Visualization and AnalyticsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Researchers Misunderstand Confidence Intervals and Standard Error Bars.

Belia, Sarah, Fidler, Fiona, Williams, Jennifer, Cumming, Geoff·2005·Psychological Methods

Abstract

Little is known about researchers' understanding of confidence intervals (CIs) and standard error (SE) bars. Authors of journal articles in psychology, behavioral neuroscience, and medicine were invited to visit a Web site where they adjusted a figure until they judged 2 means, with error bars, to be just statistically significantly different (p < .05). Results from 473 respondents suggest that many leading researchers have severe misconceptions about how error bars relate to statistical significance, do not adequately distinguish CIs and SE bars, and do not appreciate the importance of whether the 2 means are independent or come from a repeated measures design. Better guidelines for researchers and less ambiguous graphical conventions are needed before the advantages of CIs for research communication can be realized.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.389

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In comparison to interventions for stress, the findings suggest that breathwork might be associated with similar-and non-significantly different-effects.

    “Through estimating statistically significant differences and 95% CIs among studies97, in comparison to interventions for stress, our findings suggest that breathwork might be associated with similar—and non-significantly different—effects.”
  • CIs are not immune to incorrect interpretations either.

    “However, CIs are not immune to incorrect interpretations either (Belia et al., 2005; Hoekstra et al., 2014; Miller and Ulrich, 2016).”

    From Misconceptions of the p-value among Chilean and Italian Academic Psychologists (2016) · cites this paper as Belia et al., 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Belia, S., Fidler, F., Williams, J., & Cumming, G.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2005
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
389-396
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2110405340
Cited by
390
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
confidence intervals, error bars, statistical significance, repeated measures designs, scholarly communication
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research, Confidence Intervals

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