Premium
It's time to move on from the bell curve
Author(s) -
Robinson Lawrence R.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.25695
Subject(s) - percentile , normative , statistics , task (project management) , mathematics , econometrics , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , law , economics , political science , management
The bell curve was first described in the 18th century by de Moivre and Gauss to depict the distribution of binomial events, such as coin tossing, or repeated measures of physical objects. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the bell curve was appropriated, or perhaps misappropriated, to apply to biologic and social measures across people. For many years we used it to derive reference values for our electrophysiologic studies. There is, however, no reason to believe that electrophysiologic measures should approximate a bell‐curve distribution, and empiric evidence suggests they do not. The concept of using mean ± 2 standard deviations should be abandoned. Reference values are best derived by using non‐parametric analyses, such as percentile values. This proposal aligns with the recommendation of the recent normative data task force of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine and follows sound statistical principles. Muscle Nerve 56 : 859–860, 2017