1 / 16

The New Statistics: Why & How Corey Mackenzie, Ph.D., C. Psych

This article discusses the need for changes in how we conduct research, including addressing threats to research integrity and shifting from Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST). It explores new solutions such as estimation, effect sizes, and meta-analysis.

swinter
Télécharger la présentation

The New Statistics: Why & How Corey Mackenzie, Ph.D., C. Psych

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The New Statistics:Why & HowCorey Mackenzie, Ph.D., C. Psych

  2. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/scitecheng/about/staff/profile?uname=GDCumminghttp://www.latrobe.edu.au/scitecheng/about/staff/profile?uname=GDCumming http://www.latrobe.edu.au/psy/research/cognitive-and-developmental-psychology/esci

  3. Outline • Need for changes to how we conduct research • Three threats to research integrity • Shift from Null Hypothesis Sig Testing (NHST) • 3 “new” solutions • Estimation • Effect sizes • Meta-analysis

  4. 1st change to how we do research: Enhance research integrity by addressing three threats

  5. Threat to Integrity #1 • We must have complete reporting of findings • Small or large effects, important or not • Challenging because journals have limited space and are looking for novel, “significant” findings • Potential solutions • Online data repositories • New online journals • Open-access journals

  6. Threat to Integrity #2 • We need to avoid selection and bias in data analysis (e.g., cherry picking) • How? • Prespecified research in which critical aspects of studies are registered beforehand • Distinguishing exploratory from prespecified studies

  7. Threat to Integrity #3 • We need published replications (ideally with more precise estimates than original study) • Key for meta-analysis • Need greater opportunities to report them

  8. 2n change to how we do research: stop evaluating research outcomes by testing the null hypothesis

  9. Problems with p-values In April 2009, people rushed to Boots pharmacies in Britain to buy No. 7 Protect & Perfect Intense Beauty Serum. They were prompted by media reports of an article in the British Journal of Dermatology stating that the anti-ageing cream “produced statistically significant improvement in facial wrinkles as compared to baseline assessment (p = .013), whereas [placebo-treated] skin was not significantly improved (p = .11)”. The article claimed a statistically significant effect of the cream because p < .05, but no significant effect of the control placebo cream because p > .05. In other words, the cream had an effect, but the control material didn’t.

  10. Problems with NHST • Kline (2004) What’s Wrong with Stats Tests • 8 Fallacies about null hypothesis testing • Encourages dichotomous thinking, but effects come in shades of grey • P = .001, .04, .06, .92 • NHST is strongly affected by sample size

  11. Solution #1 • Support for Bill 32 is 53% in a poll with an error margin of 2% • i.e., 53 (51-55 with 95% confidence) vs • Support is statistically significantly greater than 50%, p < .01

  12. Solution #2 • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size • http://lsr-wiki-01.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize • G*Power

  13. Solution #3 • Meta-analysis • P-values have no (or very little) role except their negative influence on the file-drawer effect • Overcomes wide confidence intervals often given by individual studies • Can makes sense of messy and disputed research literatures

  14. Why do we love P? • Suggests importance • We’re reluctant to change • Confidence intervals are sometimes embarrassingly wide • 9 ±12 • But this accurately indicates unreliability of data

  15. Why might we change? • 30 years of damning critiques of NHST • 6th edition of APA publication manual • Used by more than 1000 journals across disciplines • Researchers should “wherever possible, base discussion and interpretation of results on point and interval estimates” • http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal200808/manuscriptSubmission

  16. Epi Example

More Related