Internet Publication

Permanent URI for this collection

https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/11483

Browse

Browsing Internet Publication by Subject "Bayes factor"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Manipulating the alpha level cannot cure significance testing – comments on "Redefine statistical significance"
    (PeerJ Preprints, 2017-11-14) Trafimov D; Amrhein V; Areshenkoff CN; Barrera - Causil C; Beh EJ; Bilgiç Y; Bono R; Bradley MT; Briggs WM; Cepeda - Freyre HA; Chaigneau SE; Ciocca DR; Correa JC; Cousineau D; de Boer MR; Dhar SS; Dolgov I; Gómez - Benito J; Grendar M; Grice J; Guerrero - Gimenez ME; Gutiérrez A; Huedo - Medina TB; Jaffe K; Janyan A; Karimnezhad A; Korner - Nievergelt F; Kosugi K; Lachmair M; Ledesma R; Limongi R; Liuzza MT; Lombardo R; Marks M; Meinlschmidt G; Nalborczyk L; Nguyen HT; Ospina R; Perezgonzalez JD; Pfister R; Rahona JJ; Rodríguez - Medina DA; Romão X; Ruiz - Fernández S; Suarez I; Tegethoff M; Tejo M; van de Schoot R; Vankov I; Velasco - Forero S; Wang T; Yamada Y; Zoppino FCM; Marmolejo - Ramos F
    We argue that depending on p-values to reject null hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level for statistical significance from .05 to .005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science. Given that blanket and variable criterion levels both are problematic, it is sensible to dispense with significance testing altogether. There are alternatives that address study design and determining sample sizes much more directly than significance testing does; but none of the statistical tools should replace significance testing as the new magic method giving clear-cut mechanical answers. Inference should not be based on single studies at all, but on cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider, for example, auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, or implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold of .05, .01, .005, or anything else, is not acceptable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Retract 0.005 and propose using JASP, instead
    (F1000 Research Ltd, 2017-11-29) Perezgonzalez JD; Frias-Navarro MD
    Seeking to address the lack of research reproducibility in science, including psychology and the life sciences, a pragmatic solution has been raised recently: to use a stricter p < 0.005 standard for statistical significance when claiming evidence of new discoveries. Notwithstanding its potential impact, the proposal has motivated a large mass of authors to dispute it from different philosophical and methodological angles. This article reflects on the original argument and the consequent counterarguments, and concludes with a simpler and better-suited alternative that the authors of the proposal knew about and, perhaps, should have made from their Jeffresian perspective: to use a Bayes factors analysis in parallel (e.g., via JASP) in order to learn more about frequentist error statistics and about Bayesian prior and posterior beliefs without having to mix inconsistent research philosophies.