[deleted]
Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#12Earlier 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.
OK, we updated the title from “Empirical assessment of recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature” which was a good edit to begin with!
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#13Post-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 devel…
Hoenig & Heisey (2001) discuss computing power after finding non-significant results. This is a bit different from the current paper, which also looks at the power for significant findings. (The conclusion here being that studies are so underpowered that they should be finding a lot fewer significant effects).
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#14Full 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...
What is with those awful blurry figures?
Re: Effect sizes and power in cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
#15Post-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 devel…
Hoenig & Heisey (2001) discuss computing power after finding non -significant results. This is a bit different from the current paper, which also looks at the power for significant findings. (The conclusion here being that studies are so underpowered that they should be finding a lot fewer significant effects).
post hoc power calculations are inappropriate as they merely restate the p-value in a different form. No new information is gained.