↓ Skip to main content

t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—a paradox of statistical practice?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—a paradox of statistical practice?
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten W Fagerland

Abstract

During the last 30 years, the median sample size of research studies published in high-impact medical journals has increased manyfold, while the use of non-parametric tests has increased at the expense of t-tests. This paper explores this paradoxical practice and illustrates its consequences.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Professor 9 7%
Other 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 22%
Unspecified 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 12%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Environmental Science 8 6%
Other 50 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,125,164
of 13,522,548 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#362
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,949
of 121,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,522,548 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 121,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them