As a beginner statistician, discussing the need to be accurate with the interpretation of statistical results with non-statistician is not an easy task. In particular, I am trying to convince some colleagues not to dive into the common mis-interpretation of confidence-interval (maybe I should not?).
For some problem, there is some illustrating and highlighting (and funny) paper as this one (http://www.jsur.org/ar/jsur_ben102010.pdf) about the need of multiple testing correction for whose I extract a small citation:
[...] we completed an fMRI scanning session with a post-mortem Atlantic Salmon as the subject. The salmon was shown the same social perspective-taking task that was later administered to a group of human subjects."
that is a terrific argument to encourage practioner to use multiple testing corrections.
Are you aware of such a paper about the common mis-interpretation of confidence interval (that are typically interpreted as credibility-interval) ? or any other than can help me in my arguments.