Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008;5(6):635-40.
doi: 10.1177/1740774508098590.

An analysis of the controversy over classical one-sided tests

Affiliations
Review

An analysis of the controversy over classical one-sided tests

Laurence S Freedman. Clin Trials. 2008.

Erratum in

  • Clin Trials. 2009 Apr;6(2):198

Abstract

Background: When applying classical tests of the null hypothesis in clinical trials, there has been considerable controversy over the choice between a one-sided versus a two-sided test. The choice between a one-sided and two-sided test still impacts on sample size calculations, assessment of study results by regulatory authorities, and publication of study results in academic journals.

Purpose: To analyze the main elements in the controversy, and examine the procedures from both a Bayesian and classical viewpoint.

Methods and results: Using a Bayesian decision framework, it is shown that there is no reason to double the p-value when moving from a one-sided to a two-sided test. Within the classical framework, it is shown that the doubling of the p-value results from a discontinuity due to testing a point null hypothesis. A three-decision rule, credited to Neyman or Wald, is presented that does not require the doubling of the p-value, and is consistent with a Bayesian approach.

Conclusions: For most comparative clinical trials the three-decision rule is appropriate, and its use would abolish the controversy over one-sided tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources