Estimation accuracy in the psychological sciences

Clintin P Davis-Stober, Jason Dana and Jeffrey N Rouder

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 11, 1-17

Abstract: Sample means comparisons are a fundamental and ubiquitous approach to interpreting experimental psychological data. Yet, we argue that the sample and effect sizes in published psychological research are frequently so small that sample means are insufficiently accurate to determine whether treatment effects have occurred. Generally, an estimator should be more accurate than any benchmark that systematically ignores information about the relations among experimental conditions. We consider two such benchmark estimators: one that randomizes the relations among conditions and another that always assumes no treatment effects. We show conditions under which these benchmark estimators estimate the true parameters more accurately than sample means. This perverse situation can occur even when effects are statistically significant at traditional levels. Our argument motivates the need for regularized estimates, such as those used in lasso, ridge, and hierarchical Bayes techniques.

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207239 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 07239&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0207239

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207239

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().