Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#2Full title "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" was too long. Authors: Denes Szucs and John Ioannidis
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#3Full title "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" was too long. Authors: Denes Szucs and John Ioannidis
Direct link to paper: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/08/25/071530.f...
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#4I'd love someone more adept at the statistics than me to shed some light on the veracity and implications of this study.
Based on the abstract it seems pretty damning for cognitive science research conducted over the last 5 years (the period covered in the study). Perhaps it extends even farther back if most of those studies were built on previous research.
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#5For those not in the know, John Ioannidis is responsible for much of the current focus on reproducibility in science, following his seminal 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings are False." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#6Full title "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" was too long. Authors: Denes Szucs and John Ioannidis
Could the title be tweaked to include "effect sizes and power" somehow? Those are the most important parts of the title, yet are missing completely from the short version.
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#7Post-hoc power assessments? c'mon e.g. Hoenig & Heisey (2001) provide evidence that several different approaches for calculating post-hoc power are flawed and can produce misleading conclusions. Once a confidence interval has been computed, there is no additional information that a post hoc power calculation can provide.
Nevertheless cog neuroscience has had a bad habit of using small samples, sample sizes that developmental cognitive neuroscientists have criticized.
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#8Full title "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" was too long. Authors: Denes Szucs and John Ioannidis
Could the title be tweaked to include "effect sizes and power" somehow? Those are the most important parts of the title, yet are missing completely from the short version.
Suggestions welcome and I'll alter. Edit, oh I can't, have to let admins do so if they think it best. IT was a hard edit to do.
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#9For those not in the know, John Ioannidis is responsible for much of the current focus on reproducibility in science, following his seminal 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings are False." ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ )
Here's an Atlantic profile on his work, from 2010 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could the title be tweaked to include "effect sizes and power" somehow? Those are the most important parts of the title, yet are missing completely from the short version.
Suggestions welcome and I'll alter. Edit, oh I can't, have to let admins do so if they think it best. IT was a hard edit to do.
Power and Effect Sizes in Recent Psychology & Neuro Papers, perhaps?