{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/100743"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/100743","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Failure to Reject the p-value is Not the Same as Accepting it: The Development, Validation, and Administration of the KPVMI Instrument","abstract":"The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). An iterative process of expert review, pilot testing, and field testing resulted in an adequately reliable measure (Alpha = .8030) of p-value fluency as assessed across 18 misinterpretations and 2 process levels as well as an independently validated sub-measure of p-value fluency in context as assessed across 18 misinterpretations (Alpha = .8298). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). The median score was 10/18 items answered correctly indicating that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers.","abstract_html":"The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). An iterative process of expert review, pilot testing, and field testing resulted in an adequately reliable measure (Alpha = .8030) of p-value fluency as assessed across 18 misinterpretations and 2 process levels as well as an independently validated sub-measure of p-value fluency in context as assessed across 18 misinterpretations (Alpha = .8298). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). The median score was 10/18 items answered correctly indicating that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Keller, Rachel Elizabeth"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":"Curriculum and Instruction","degree_department":"Education, Vocational-Technical","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Skaggs, Gary E.","Ulrich, Catherine L."],"committee_members":["Johnson, Estrella","Driscoll, Anne R."],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-05-08","date_published":"2019-05-08","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:57Z","subjects":["p-values","research methods","statistical knowledge"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:19245"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:19245","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/100743","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Skaggs, Gary E.","Ulrich, Catherine L."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Johnson, Estrella","Driscoll, Anne R."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Education, Vocational-Technical"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Keller, Rachel Elizabeth"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2020-10-30T06:00:25Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-10-30T06:00:25Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2019-05-08"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Curriculum and Instruction"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["p-values","research methods","statistical knowledge"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:19245"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/100743"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). An iterative process of expert review, pilot testing, and field testing resulted in an adequately reliable measure (Alpha = .8030) of p-value fluency as assessed across 18 misinterpretations and 2 process levels as well as an independently validated sub-measure of p-value fluency in context as assessed across 18 misinterpretations (Alpha = .8298). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). The median score was 10/18 items answered correctly indicating that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstractgeneral","label":"General Abstract","values":["The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). Results indicate that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Failure to Reject the p-value is Not the Same as Accepting it: The Development, Validation, and Administration of the KPVMI Instrument"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Skaggs, Gary E.","Ulrich, Catherine L."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Johnson, Estrella","Driscoll, Anne R."],"dc:contributor.department":["Education, Vocational-Technical"],"dc:creator":["Keller, Rachel Elizabeth"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2020-10-30T06:00:25Z"],"dc:date.available":["2020-10-30T06:00:25Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2019-05-08"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). An iterative process of expert review, pilot testing, and field testing resulted in an adequately reliable measure (Alpha = .8030) of p-value fluency as assessed across 18 misinterpretations and 2 process levels as well as an independently validated sub-measure of p-value fluency in context as assessed across 18 misinterpretations (Alpha = .8298). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). The median score was 10/18 items answered correctly indicating that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers."],"dc:description.abstractgeneral":["The purpose of this study was to investigate on a national scale the baseline level of p-value fluency of future researchers (i.e., doctoral students). To that end, two research questions were investigated. The first research question, Can a sufficiently reliable and valid measure of p-value misinterpretations (in a research context) be constructed?, was addressed via the development and validation of the Keller P-value Misinterpretation Inventory instrument (KPVMI). The second research question, What do the results of the KPVMI administration tell us about the current level of p-value fluency among doctoral students nationally?, was addressed via analysis of a subset of the field test data (n = 147) with respect to performance on the subset of items considered sufficiently validated as developed in Phases I-III (KPVMI-1). Results indicate that future researchers on the aggregate struggle to properly interpret and report p-values in context; furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to indicate training and experience are positively correlated with performance. These results aligned with the extant literature regarding the p-value misinterpretations of practicing researchers."],"dc:description.degree":["Doctor of Philosophy"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:19245"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/100743"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["p-values","research methods","statistical knowledge"],"dc:title":["Failure to Reject the p-value is Not the Same as Accepting it: The Development, Validation, and Administration of the KPVMI Instrument"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Curriculum and Instruction"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:57Z"}