RESUMEN
Motivated by the recent replication and reproducibility crisis, Gelman and Carlin (2014, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 9, 641) advocated focusing on controlling for Type S/M errors, instead of the classic Type I/II errors, when conducting hypothesis testing. In this paper, we aim to fill several theoretical gaps in the methodology proposed by Gelman and Carlin (2014, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 9, 641). In particular, we derive the closed-form expression for the expected Type M error, and study the mathematical properties of the probability of Type S error as well as the expected Type M error, such as monotonicity. We demonstrate the advantages of our results through numerical and empirical examples.
Asunto(s)
Probabilidad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
Statistical power analysis provides the conventional approach to assess error rates when designing a research study. However, power analysis is flawed in that a narrow emphasis on statistical significance is placed as the primary focus of study design. In noisy, small-sample settings, statistically significant results can often be misleading. To help researchers address this problem in the context of their own studies, we recommend design calculations in which (a) the probability of an estimate being in the wrong direction (Type S [sign] error) and (b) the factor by which the magnitude of an effect might be overestimated (Type M [magnitude] error or exaggeration ratio) are estimated. We illustrate with examples from recent published research and discuss the largest challenge in a design calculation: coming up with reasonable estimates of plausible effect sizes based on external information.