Even statisticians are not immune to misinterpretations of null hypothesis significance tests

We investigated the way experienced users interpret Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) outcomes. An empirical study was designed to compare the reactions of two populations of NHST users, psychological researchers and professional applied statisticians, when faced with contradictory situations. The subjects were presented with the results of an experiment designed to test the efficacy of a drug by comparing two groups (treatment/placebo). Four situations were constructed by combining the outcome of the t test (significant vs. nonsignificant) and the observed difference between the two means D (large vs. small). Two of these situations appeared as conflicting (t significant/D small and t nonsignificant/D large). Three fundamental aspects of statistical inference were investigated by means of open questions: drawing inductive conclusions about the magnitude of the true difference from the data in hand, making predictions for future data, and making decisions about stopping the experiment. The subjects were 25 statisticians from pharmaceutical companies in France, subjects well versed in statistics, and 20 psychological researchers from various laboratories in France, all with experience in processing and analyzing experimental data. On the whole, statisticians and psychologists reacted in a similar way and were very impressed by significant results. It must be outlined that professional applied statisticians were not immune to misinterpretations, especially in the case of nonsignificance. However, the interpretations that accustomed users attach to the outcome of NHST can vary from one individual to another, and it is hard to conceive that there could be a consensus in the face of seemingly conflicting situations. In fact, beyond the superficial report of "erroneous" interpretations, it can be seen in the misuses of NHST intuitive judgmental "adjustments" that try to overcome its inherent shortcomings. These findings encourage the many recent attempts to improve the habitual ways of analyzing and reporting experimental data.