Fisher's method — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Also named here as global null, stouffer's method, tippett's method — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.
Two ways to combine p-values
Fisher's and Stouffer's combinations are both exactly right when every null is true, for the single reason that each p-value is flat. Under a real effect they disagree about which evidence counts: with Stouffer held at 50% power across ten studies, Fisher is the more powerful while the signal sits in six or fewer of them and the less powerful from seven.
The smallest of three combinations
Reporting whichever of Fisher's, Stouffer's and Tippett's combinations is smallest is a test of its own, and on ten studies of nothing it rejects 9.66% of the time — not 5%, and nowhere near the 15% the three sizes add to, because the statistics are correlated at up to 0.903. Read at 2.448% each it is exact, and then it trails the best single combination by at most 7.45 points and leads the worst by at least 10.30.
Studies that share a control
Ten comparisons against one control arm of the same size are correlated at exactly one half, and combined as though they were independent, Stouffer's sum rejects 24.23% of sets in which nothing works, Fisher's 17.88%, while Tippett's smallest p-value falls to 3.72%. Repaired with the correlation the design states, each is exact again — and the smallest of the three is then inflated less than for independent studies, 7.05% against 9.66%, because sharing makes the three combinations agree. The two inflations the dependence was expected to stack do not stack.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Global nullMonte CarloMultiple comparisonsp-valueStouffer's methodTippett's methodUniformityCorrelationStatistical powerChi squaredClosed formConservative test