Accuracy of Statistical Inferences Drawn from Two-Sample Graphs

What sorts of graphical formats best convey effect size and degree of certainty of a find- ing? Confidence intervals are commonly used to show uncertainty, yet lay people and experts fail to correctly interpret their meaning. There has been a recent push to present individual data points rather than only presenting aggregated summary statistics (e.g., means, confi- dence intervals, lines of best fit). But it is unclear how well people can aggregate raw data presented in a graphical format. Across two studies, we presented participants with hypo- thetical study outcomes of two independent groups in three graph styles: dot plots, mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) plots, combined plots, and bee plots. We asked partici- pants to make judgments about the effect size, using the Common Language Effect Size, or Bayes Factors. Participants were more likely to underestimate effect sizes and Bayes Factors for dot plots and bee plots compared to mean + 95% CI plots and combined plots. These findings suggest that people have trouble making statistical inferences when presented with raw data points in graphs.

Publication Details

Journal
D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
Published
2024-12-20
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy of Statistical Inferences Drawn from Two-Sample Graphs

D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Accuracy of Statistical Inferences Drawn from Two-Sample Graphs

article en

Abstract

What sorts of graphical formats best convey effect size and degree of certainty of a find- ing? Confidence intervals are commonly used to show uncertainty, yet lay people and experts fail to correctly interpret their meaning. There has been a recent push to present individual data points rather than only presenting aggregated summary statistics (e.g., means, confi- dence intervals, lines of best fit). But it is unclear how well people can aggregate raw data presented in a graphical format. Across two studies, we presented participants with hypo- thetical study outcomes of two independent groups in three graph styles: dot plots, mean with 95% confidence interval (CI) plots, combined plots, and bee plots. We asked partici- pants to make judgments about the effect size, using the Common Language Effect Size, or Bayes Factors. Participants were more likely to underestimate effect sizes and Bayes Factors for dot plots and bee plots compared to mean + 95% CI plots and combined plots. These findings suggest that people have trouble making statistical inferences when presented with raw data points in graphs.

D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.