Posts by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
(DIR) Post #ASrsbqD1rZ4qGYL3IW by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-15T09:49:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Greenland et al. (2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 ) suggested a more refined goal of statistics than testing study hypotheses is the evaluation of the (un)certainty of effect sizes.I agree. The majority of studies are exploratory, hence testing hypotheses does not make sense.#science #statistics #papers
(DIR) Post #ASrsbrQXKpTa2jfLzU by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-15T11:45:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens do you mean estimation of ES (un)certainty is enough both to distinguish signal from noise and to test hypotheses?
(DIR) Post #ASrsbsUpMMVDMKgIJk by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-15T12:48:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens I'm not sure yet. I think significance testing (with p < .05) is a bad idea, while a priori determination of when claims will be accepted or refuted is essential. I am undecided whether ES and CIs are enough (I have not come across other frequentist methods yet).
(DIR) Post #ASrsbtYPQWxgdjMfXU by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-16T14:27:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens it is definitely fashionable to criticize NHST and the default p < .05. I think the good thing about that is that researchers shouldn't use these defaults without thinking about them. Which is mostly about education, like you say.
(DIR) Post #ASrsbuSQ4HlTRRZOqG by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-16T16:48:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens but the editors of that special issue suggest "don't use statistical significance". That's also my current standpoint: p-values are fine as a continuous metric, and more education is needed so people use them correctly.Hypothesis testing needs more, and I'm unsure yet what.
(DIR) Post #ASrsbverbVJTAKOqsS by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-16T17:43:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens subtle :P. I did not know this. I'll check out that paper. Thanks.
(DIR) Post #ASrsbwWOOU8BqLRbJQ by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-17T08:14:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens aw man, that sucks. Thanks for the Task Force paper. It seems I should check out all papers in the special issue myself, too.
(DIR) Post #ASrsbxaKRKsF8qIG5Q by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-17T09:41:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lakens so using interval hypothesis tests (and meaningful effect sizes)? When I started reading about the NHST-issue about a year ago (with papers like Meehl, 1967), that's what I thought but I couldn't find concrete examples and ended up with the "abandon significance" idea. Good to hear there is a body of work that supports the use of interval hypotheses (I was reading your book, which seems like a good continuation).
(DIR) Post #ASrsbysRdSxX9JmExk by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-17T11:48:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@david_colquhoun so that's what Greenland et al (2016, # 202301051039 greenland2016) meant. So are they still useful?
(DIR) Post #ASrsc04tAgVWsCbgzw by raoulvanoosten@ecoevo.social
2023-02-19T07:32:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@david_colquhoun @lakens I think indeed frequentist interference tries to answer the wrong question ("what is the probability of finding these data under the tested hypothesis?" rather than "what is the probability my tested hypothesis is true?"). Your false positive risk ( https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171085 ) is much closer to that question.