title: Continued misinterpretation of confidence intervals: response to Miller and Ulrich.
abstract: Miller and Ulrich (2015) critique our claim (Hoekstra et al., Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157-1164, 2014), based on a survey given to researchers and students, of widespread misunderstanding of confidence intervals (CIs). They suggest that survey respondents may have interpreted the statements in the survey that we deemed incorrect in an idiosyncratic, but correct, way, thus calling into question the conclusion that the results indicate that respondents could not properly interpret CIs. Their alternative interpretations, while correct, cannot be deemed acceptable renderings of the questions in the survey due to the well-known reference class problem. Moreover, there is no support in the data for their contention that participants may have had their alternative interpretations in mind. Finally, their alternative interpretations are merely trivial restatements of the definition of a confidence interval, and have no implications for the location of a parameter.
authors.affiliation: Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. richarddmorey@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Richard D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Morey
authors.affiliation: University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Rink
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Hoekstra
authors.affiliation: University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
authors.forename: Jeffrey N
authors.initials: JN
authors.lastname: Rouder
authors.affiliation: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Eric-Jan
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Wagenmakers
mesh_terms: D016001:Confidence Intervals; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans
keywords: Bayesian statistics; Statistical inference; Statistics