Stack Exchange
open access
CC BY-SA
Are large data sets inappropriate for hypothesis testing?
In a recent article of Amstat News, the authors (Mark van der Laan and Sherri Rose) stated that "We know that for large enough sample sizes, every study—including ones in which the null hypothesis of no effect is true — will declare a statistically significant effect.". Well, I for one didn't know that. Is this true? Does it mean that hypothesis testing is worthless for large data sets?
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Does Increasing Sample Size Inevitably Lead to Statistical Significance? Insights From a Monte Carlo Simulation Study for Medical Research Design.#385246
- 33 U.S.C. § 2267 — New York Bight study#585340
- Is normality testing 'essentially useless'?#787255
- Data quality, experimental artifacts, and the reactivity of the psychological subject matter#732920
- Finite Sample Bounds for Composite Hypothesis Testing#819476
Record · ID 787314
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive