<i>P</i>-Value Precision and Reproducibility

It is shown that p-values exhibit surprisingly large variability in typical data situations, and the use of *, **, and *** to denote levels 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 of statistical significance in subject-matter journals is about the right level of precision for reporting p- values when judged by widely accepted rules for rounding statistical estimates.

Abstract

P-values are useful statistical measures of evidence against a null hypothesis. In contrast to other statistical estimates, however, their sample-to-sample variability is usually not considered or estimated, and therefore not fully appreciated. Via a systematic study of log-scale p-value standard errors, bootstrap prediction bounds, and reproducibility probabilities for future replicate p-values, we show that p-values exhibit surprisingly large variability in typical data situations. In addition to providing context to discussions about the failure of statistical results to replicate, our findings shed light on the relative value of exact p-values vis-a-vis approximate p-values, and indicate that the use of *, **, and *** to denote levels .05, .01, and .001 of statistical significance in subject-matter journals is about the right level of precision for reporting p-values when judged by widely accepted rules for rounding statistical estimates.