![]() ![]() The hosts shared a similar experience 5 minutes into the episode. Not bad per se, but that making claims without controlling your error rate is Therefore, I patiently explain during workshops that flexibility is Without realizing the consequences’ swings back to far to ‘all flexibility is Which risks becoming overly conservative, as the pendulum from ‘we are all p-hacking Researchers are not yet immersed in an academic environment where they see flexibility Increasingly use correct language the longer they are immersed in it. The added bonus that it can increase the efficiency of data collection. Yes, sequential analyses give a lot of flexibility to stopĭata collection, but it does so while carefully controlling error rates, with Is a bad thing’ to cases where it does not apply, such as in the case of So, they apply the rule ‘flexibility in the data analysis Is called p-hacking, and is a very bad thing that was one of the causes of the We teach young researchers that flexibly analyzing data inflates error rates, The early career researcher whoĪsked me if sequential analysis was a form of p-hacking was also overregularizing. Mouse, two mouses’ (instead of ‘two mice’). ![]() They learn ‘one cow, twoĬows’, and use the +s rule for plural where it is not appropriate, such as ‘one Instances where it does not apply: Overregularization. Linguistics there is a term for when children apply a rule they have learned to Is not significant, and, I don’t want to be rude, but isn’t this p-hacking?” Recommend sequential analysis in your paperįor when effect sizes are uncertain, where researchers collect data, analyze theĭata, stop when a test is significant, or continue data collection when a test Workshop on Sample Size Justification an early career researcher asked me: “You ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |