{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02349336057201226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020429009193054137, 'mean_word_length': 5.490066225165563, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Searching for Reliable Relationships With Statistics Packages: An Empirical Example of the Potential Problems

Abstract Many social scientists appear to possess an overconfidence in the reliability of research results from a single, small-sample, inferential study. In this article, the authors speculate that “user-friendly” statistics packages have the potential to exacerbate statistical misinterpretation by providing researchers with a tool to explore data easily and identify what is interpreted as “reliable” relationships. This article contains an empirical demonstration of the potential problems that arise when a large number of statistical tests are interpreted. Results show that statistically significant results may be unreliable. Also, a zero relationship can erroneously appear as a medium to large effect size relationship when a small sample is used (e.g., n = 30). The authors suggest the need for multiple replications as the criterion of a reliable finding.