Aiming for the truth: understanding the difference between validity and precision

Attia, John R; Jones, Michael P; Suthers, Belinda

doi:10.5694/mja16.00489

Topics

In teaching generations of registrars, a recurring theme is the conflation of the concepts of validity and precision, resulting in an erroneous understanding of the role of statistics. In this article, we clarify the definition of these two concepts, looking at what drives these measures and how they can be maximised.

1 Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW
2 John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW
3 Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW
4 Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW

Correspondence: john.attia@newcastle.edu.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 51-63.
2. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 635-641.
3. Schwartz S, Campbell UB, Gatto NM, Gordon K. Towards a clarification of the taxonomy of “bias” in epidemiology textbooks. Epidemiology 2015; 26: 216-222.
4. van Duijn CM, Hofman A. Relation between nicotine intake and Alzheimer’s disease. BMJ 1991; 302: 1491-1494.
5. Ott A, Slooter AJ, Hofman A, et al. Smoking and risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in a population-based cohort study: the Rotterdam Study. Lancet 1998; 351: 1840-1843.
6. Berkson J. Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. Biometrics 1946; 2: 47-53.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.