Learn Before
Short Answer

A peer reviewer rejects a manuscript because the authors state, 'Our pp value of .03 proves there is a 3% chance the null hypothesis is true.' Evaluate the validity of the peer reviewer's reason for rejection in one to three sentences, using the correct definition of the pp value to justify your evaluation.

Question: A peer reviewer rejects a manuscript because the authors state, 'Our pp value of .03 proves there is a 3% chance the null hypothesis is true.' Evaluate the validity of the peer reviewer's reason for rejection in one to three sentences, using the correct definition of the pp value to justify your evaluation.

Sample answer: The peer reviewer's reason for rejection is valid because the authors committed the most common misinterpretation of the pp value. The pp value does not represent the probability that the null hypothesis is true. Rather, it calculates the probability of obtaining the specific sample data assuming the null hypothesis is already true.

Key points:

  • Evaluates the peer reviewer's rejection as valid.
  • Points out the authors' claim is the most common misinterpretation of the pp value.
  • Justifies the evaluation by defining the pp value as the probability of the data assuming the null hypothesis is true.

Rubric: A valid response must explicitly evaluate the peer reviewer's decision as justified and accurately define the pp value (probability of the sample data assuming the null hypothesis is true) to support the evaluation.

0

1

Updated 2026-05-27

Contributors are:

Who are from:

Tags

KPU

Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU

Related