{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibhaabdldzormqiytog3yvvf7aiikuvjana5ufb5hqirk3qelwnsi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfttpd722oy2"
  },
  "path": "/t/change-the-range-not-the-language-on-confidence-intervals/27740?page=2#post_29",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-26T18:03:10.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "textContent": "Agreed; however we need to stop identification of P-values with “tests”. P-values are just measures of fit; their habitual identification with “statistical significance” and “hypothesis tests” and of intervals constructed from them with “confidence intervals” are what I see as the chief culprits in statistical overinterpretation and misinterpretation.\n\nA P-value is but one measure of fit or compatibility (Karl Pearson) or consonance (Oscar Kempthorne) or consistency (DR Cox) [albeit it may be the oldest such measure, as it predates the notion of “significance test” by a good century or so; even the term “value of P” (Pearson 1900) predates Fisher’s testing interpretation by a few decades]. By looking at P-values across a parameter range we can construct a compatibility interval showing all target-parameter values that have p>0.05 when all background assumptions are held fixed.\n\nAny interpretation beyond that (e.g., “Type-I error”, “power”, “confidence”) requires much added baggage that is in no way inherent in the P-value concept, baggage such as the demanding requirements of Neyman’s repeated-sampling set-up. In sum, that P-values can be used to construct statistical tests does **not** mean P-values should be viewed as tests. And certainly any in-depth analysis demands more measures of fit than just P-values, such as those described in your book!",
  "title": "Change the range not the language on confidence intervals"
}