Robust Misinterpretation of Confidence Intervals

Hoekstra, R., Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Wagenmakers, E. (2014). Robust Misinterpretation of Confidence Intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157-1164.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2014

Volume

21

Issue

5

Pages

1157-1164

DOI

10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3

DOI registrant

Springer Nature

Link

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3

Cited from

statistics_experimental_design

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Confidence Intervals
  • Mature practice uses each framework thoughtfully, matching choice to scientific question and stakeholder context; immature practice declares one framework universally correct and rejects the other

    This sourceSurvey evidence that researchers and students robustly endorse the intuitive (Bayesian) 'there is a 95% probability the true value is in this interval' reading. DOI live-confirmed to resolve this session.

• Effect Size
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:3a5a0a21eee5 · see in the full table