In the medical diagnosis illustration of statistical errors, which scenario represents a Type II error (a false negative)?

A memorable illustration of statistical errors involves medical diagnoses. A Type I error (a false positive) is akin to a doctor examining a male patient and incorrectly declaring, 'You are pregnant.' The doctor has claimed to detect a condition that does not actually exist. Conversely, a Type II error (a false negative) is akin to a doctor examining a visibly pregnant female patient and incorrectly concluding, 'You are not pregnant.' In this case, the doctor has failed to detect a condition that is genuinely present.

Google

A Type I error is a false positive in null hypothesis testing. It occurs when a researcher mistakenly concludes that their results are statistically significant—thereby rejecting the null hypothesis—when, in reality, the null hypothesis is true and there is no actual relationship in the population. These errors happen because random sampling error can occasionally produce extreme results even when no true effect exists. The predetermined alpha level dictates the probability of committing this error when the null hypothesis is true.

Type I Error

https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/

KPU Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition

The file drawer problem refers to a systemic publication bias where researchers and journal editors selectively publish studies that yield statistically significant results while ignoring or discarding studies with non-significant findings. Because these non-significant results are hidden away 'in a file drawer,' the published scientific literature becomes skewed, often containing a disproportionately high rate of Type I errors. Consequently, the published research may artificially overstate the true strength and prevalence of relationships between variables in the population.

File Drawer Problem

p-hacking is a problematic research practice where researchers make various arbitrary analytical decisions to artificially inflate their chances of obtaining a statistically significant result. By selectively reporting dependent variables, unjustified removal of outliers, or selectively presenting only significant findings, researchers continuously manipulate their data until it yields a desirable $$p$$-value. This practice severely compromises the reliability of published results by creating an unacceptably high rate of Type I errors in the psychological literature.

p-hacking

In psychological research, replication involves repeating another scientist's experiment, often using new samples, to assess the reliability of the original findings. Because any single study carries a risk of reflecting a Type I or Type II error, researchers must be cautious when interpreting isolated results. Each successful replication of a study that produces a similar outcome provides increasing confidence that the finding represents a genuine, real-world phenomenon rather than a statistical artifact.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After