## P-Value

## Definition

In statistical hypothesis testing, the p-value or probability value is the probability for a given statistical model that, when the null hypothesis is true, the statistical summary would be the same as or more extreme than the actual observed results. The use of p-values in statistical hypothesis testing is common in many fields of research such as economics, finance, political science, psychology, biology, criminal justice, criminology, and sociology. Their misuse has been a matter of considerable controversy.

Source: Wikipedia

Last Sourced: 2017-08-01

*This Article has been Edited for Accessibility*

### p-value

In statistical hypothesis testing, the ** p-value or probability value** is the probability for a given statistical model that, when the null hypothesis is true, the statistical summary (such as the sample mean difference between two compared groups) would be the same as or of greater magnitude than the actual observed results. The use of

*p*-values in statistical hypothesis testing is common in many fields of research such as economics, finance, political science, psychology, biology, criminal justice, criminology, and sociology. Their misuse has been a matter of considerable controversy.

### Basic concepts

The *p*-value is used in the context of null hypothesis testing in order to quantify the idea of statistical significance of evidence. Null hypothesis testing is a reductio ad absurdum argument adapted to statistics. In essence, a claim is shown to be valid by demonstrating the improbability of the consequence that results from assuming the counter-claim to be true.

As such, the only hypothesis that needs to be specified in this test and which embodies the counter-claim is referred to as the null hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis to be nullified). A result is said to be statistically significant if it allows us to reject the null hypothesis. That is, as per the reductio ad absurdum reasoning, the statistically significant result should be highly improbable if the null hypothesis is assumed to be true. The rejection of the null hypothesis implies that the correct hypothesis lies in the logical complement of the null hypothesis. However, unless there is a single alternative to the null hypothesis, the rejection of null hypothesis does not tell us which of the alternatives might be the correct one.

As a general example, if a null hypothesis is assumed to follow the standard normal distribution N(0,1), then the rejection of this null hypothesis can either mean (i) the mean is not zero, or (ii) the variance is not unity, or (iii) the distribution is not normal, depending on the type of test performed. However, supposing we manage to reject the zero mean hypothesis, even if we know the distribution is normal and variance is unity, the null hypothesis test does not tell us which non-zero value we should adopt as the new mean.

If is a random variable representing the observed data and is the statistical hypothesis under consideration, then the notion of statistical significance can be naively quantified by the conditional probability , which gives the likelihood of the observation if the hypothesis is *assumed* to be correct. However, if is a continuous random variable and an instance is observed, Thus, this naive definition is inadequate and needs to be changed so as to accommodate the continuous random variables.

Nonetheless, it helps to clarify that *p*-values should **not** be confused with probability on hypothesis (as is done in Bayesian Hypothesis Testing) such as the probability of the hypothesis given the data, or the probability of the hypothesis being true, or the probability of observing the given data.

### Definition and interpretation

The *p*-value is defined as the probability, under the null hypothesis , of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed. Depending on how it is looked at, the "more extreme than what was actually observed" can mean (right-tail event) or (left-tail event) or the "smaller" of and (double-tailed event). Thus, the *p*-value is given by

The smaller the *p*-value, the larger the significance because it tells the investigator that the hypothesis under consideration may not adequately explain the observation. The hypothesis is rejected if any of these probabilities is less than or equal to a small, fixed but arbitrarily pre-defined threshold value , which is referred to as the level of significance. Unlike the *p*-value, the level is not derived from any observational data and does not depend on the underlying hypothesis; the value of is instead set by the researcher before examining the data.

Since the value of that defines the left tail or right tail event is a random variable, this makes the *p*-value a function of and a random variable in itself defined uniformly over interval, assuming is continuous. Thus, the *p*-value is not fixed. This implies that *p*-value cannot be given a frequency counting interpretation since the probability has to be fixed for the frequency counting interpretation to hold. In other words, if the same test is repeated independently bearing upon the same overall null hypothesis, it will yield different *p*-values at every repetition. Nevertheless, these different *p*-values can be combined using Fisher's combined probability test. It should further be noted that an *instantiation* of this random *p*-value can still be given a frequency counting interpretation with respect to the number of observations taken during a given test, as per the definition, as the percentage of observations more extreme than the one observed under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.

The fixed pre-defined level can be interpreted as the rate of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis (or type I error), since

This also means that if we fix an instantiation of *p*-value and allow to vary over , we can obtain an equivalent interpretation of *p*-value in terms of level as the lowest value of that can be assumed for which the null hypothesis can be rejected for a given set of observations.

### Usage

The *p*-value is widely used in statistical hypothesis testing, specifically in null hypothesis significance testing. In this method, as part of experimental design, before performing the experiment, one first chooses a model (the null hypothesis) and a threshold value for *p*, called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5% or 1% and denoted as *α*. If the *p*-value is less than the chosen significance level (*α*), that suggests that the observed data is sufficiently inconsistent with the null hypothesis that the null hypothesis may be rejected. However, that does not prove that the tested hypothesis is true. When the *p*-value is calculated correctly, this test guarantees that the Type I error rate is at most *α*. For typical analysis, using the standard *α* = 0.05 cutoff, the null hypothesis is rejected when *p* < .05 and not rejected when *p* > .05. The *p*-value does not, in itself, support reasoning about the probabilities of hypotheses but is only a tool for deciding whether to reject the null hypothesis.

### Calculation

Usually, is a test statistic, rather than any of the actual observations. A test statistic is the output of a scalar function of all the observations. This statistic provides a single number, such as the average or the correlation coefficient, that summarizes the characteristics of the data, in a way relevant to a particular inquiry. As such, the test statistic follows a distribution determined by the function used to define that test statistic and the distribution of the input observational data.

For the important case in which the data are hypothesized to follow the normal distribution, depending on the nature of the test statistic and thus the underlying hypothesis of the test statistic, different null hypothesis tests have been developed. Some such tests are z-test for normal distribution, t-test for Student's t-distribution, f-test for f-distribution. When the data do not follow a normal distribution, it can still be possible to approximate the distribution of these test statistics by a normal distribution by invoking the central limit theorem for large samples, as in the case of Pearson's chi-squared test.

Thus computing a *p*-value requires a null hypothesis, a test statistic (together with deciding whether the researcher is performing a one-tailed test or a two-tailed test), and data. Even though computing the test statistic on given data may be easy, computing the sampling distribution under the null hypothesis, and then computing its cumulative distribution function (CDF) is often a difficult problem. Today, this computation is done using statistical software, often via numeric methods (rather than exact formulae), but in the early and mid 20th century, this was instead done via tables of values, and one interpolated or extrapolated *p*-values from these discrete values. Rather than using a table of *p*-values, Fisher instead inverted the CDF, publishing a list of values of the test statistic for given fixed *p*-values; this corresponds to computing the quantile function (inverse CDF).

### Distribution

When the null hypothesis is true, the probability distribution of the *p*-value is uniform on the interval . By contrast, if the alternative hypothesis is true, the distribution is dependent on sample size and the true value of the parameter being studied.

The distribution of *p*-values for a group of studies is called a *p*-curve. The curve is affected by four factors: the proportion of studies that examined false null hypotheses, the power of the studies that investigated false null hypotheses, the alpha levels, and publication bias. A *p*-curve can be used to assess the reliability of scientific literature, such as by detecting publication bias or *p*-hacking.

### History

Computations of *p*-values date back to the 1770s, when they were calculated by Pierre-Simon Laplace:

In the 1770s Laplace considered the statistics of almost half a million births. The statistics showed an excess of boys compared to girls. He concluded by calculation of a *p*-value that the excess was a real, but unexplained, effect.

The *p*-value was first formally introduced by Karl Pearson, in his Pearson's chi-squared test, using the chi-squared distribution and notated as capital P. The *p*-values for the chi-squared distribution (for various values of *χ*2 and degrees of freedom), now notated as *P,* was calculated in (Elderton 1902), collected in (Pearson 1914, pp. xxxi–xxxiii, 26–28, Table XII).

The use of the *p*-value in statistics was popularized by Ronald Fisher, and it plays a central role in his approach to the subject. In his influential book *Statistical Methods for Research Workers* (1925), Fisher proposes the level *p* = 0.05, or a 1 in 20 chance of being exceeded by chance, as a limit for statistical significance, and applies this to a normal distribution (as a two-tailed test), thus yielding the rule of two standard deviations (on a normal distribution) for statistical significance (see 68–95–99.7 rule).

He then computes a table of values, similar to Elderton but, importantly, reverses the roles of *χ*2 and *p.* That is, rather than computing *p* for different values of *χ*2 (and degrees of freedom *n*), he computes values of *χ*2 that yield specified *p*-values, specifically 0.99, 0.98, 0.95, 0,90, 0.80, 0.70, 0.50, 0.30, 0.20, 0.10, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.01. That allowed computed values of *χ*2 to be compared against cutoffs and encouraged the use of *p*-values (especially 0.05, 0.02, and 0.01) as cutoffs, instead of computing and reporting *p*-values themselves. The same type of tables were then compiled in (Fisher & Yates 1938), which cemented the approach.

As an illustration of the application of *p*-values to the design and interpretation of experiments, in his following book *The Design of Experiments* (1935), Fisher presented the lady tasting tea experiment, which is the archetypal example of the *p*-value.

To evaluate a lady's claim that she (Muriel Bristol) could distinguish by taste how tea is prepared (first adding the milk to the cup, then the tea, or first tea, then milk), she was sequentially presented with 8 cups: 4 prepared one way, 4 prepared the other, and asked to determine the preparation of each cup (knowing that there were 4 of each). In that case, the null hypothesis was that she had no special ability, the test was Fisher's exact test, and the *p*-value was so Fisher was willing to reject the null hypothesis (consider the outcome highly unlikely to be due to chance) if all were classified correctly. (In the actual experiment, Bristol correctly classified all 8 cups.)

Fisher reiterated the *p* = 0.05 threshold and explained its rationale, stating:

It is usual and convenient for experimenters to take 5 per cent as a standard level of significance, in the sense that they are prepared to ignore all results which fail to reach this standard, and, by this means, to eliminate from further discussion the greater part of the fluctuations which chance causes have introduced into their experimental results.

He also applies this threshold to the design of experiments, noting that had only 6 cups been presented (3 of each), a perfect classification would have only yielded a *p*-value of which would not have met this level of significance. Fisher also underlined the interpretation of *p,* as the long-run proportion of values at least as extreme as the data, assuming the null hypothesis is true.

In later editions, Fisher explicitly contrasted the use of the *p*-value for statistical inference in science with the Neyman–Pearson method, which he terms "Acceptance Procedures". Fisher emphasizes that while fixed levels such as 5%, 2%, and 1% are convenient, the exact *p*-value can be used, and the strength of evidence can and will be revised with further experimentation. In contrast, decision procedures require a clear-cut decision, yielding an irreversible action, and the procedure is based on costs of error, which, he argues, are inapplicable to scientific research.

### Related quantities

A closely related concept is the **E-value**, which is the expected number of times in multiple testing that one expects to obtain a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed if one assumes that the null hypothesis is true. The E-value is the product of the number of tests and the *p*-value.

### Controversy

There is widespread agreement that *p*-values are often misused and misinterpreted. One practice that has been particularly criticized is accepting the alternative hypothesis for any *p*-value nominally less than .05 without other supporting evidence. Although *p*-values are helpful in assessing how incompatible the data are with a specified statistical model, contextual factors must also be considered, such as "the design of a study, the quality of the measurements, the external evidence for the phenomenon under study, and the validity of assumptions that underlie the data analysis". Another concern is that the *p*-value is often misunderstood as being the probability that the null hypothesis is true. Some statisticians have proposed replacing *p*-values with alternative measures of evidence, such as confidence intervals, likelihood ratios, or Bayes factors, but there is heated debate on the feasibility of these alternatives. Others have suggested to remove fixed significance thresholds and to interpret *p*-values as graded measures of the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis.

### Orthographic note

Depending on which style guide is applied, the "p" is styled either italic or not, either capitalized or not, and either hyphenated or not. For example, AMA style uses "*P* value," APA style uses "*p* value," and the American Statistical Association uses "*p*-value."

### Additional Resources

*P-values*[home.ubalt.edu]*Statistics Cheat Sheet*[web.mit.edu]*Fetishizing P-values*[golem.ph.utexas.edu]