IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/9hp7y.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Valentine, Kathrene D
  • Buchanan, Erin Michelle

    (Harrisburg University of Science and Technology)

  • Scofield, John E.
  • Beauchamp, Marshall T.

Abstract

Null hypothesis significance testing is frequently cited as a threat to the validity and reproducibility of the social sciences. While many individuals suggest we should focus on altering the *p*-value at which we deem an effect significant, we believe this suggestion is short-sighted. Alternative procedures (i.e., Bayesian analyses and Observation Oriented Modeling) can be more powerful and meaningful to our discipline. However, these methodologies are less frequently utilized and are rarely discussed in combination with NHST. Herein, we compare the possible interpretations of three analyses (ANOVA, Bayes Factor, and an Ordinal Pattern Analysis) in various data environments using a simulation study. The simulation generated 20000 unique datasets which varied sample size (*N*s of 10, 30, 100, 500, 1000), and effect sizes (*d*s of 0.10, 0.20, 0.05, 0.80). Through this simulation, we find that changing the threshold at which *p*-values are considered significant has little to no effect on conclusions. Further, we find that evaluating multiple estimates as evidence of an effect can allow for a more robust and nuanced report of findings. These findings suggest the need to redefine evidentiary value and reporting practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:9hp7y
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9hp7y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/59b5cc076c613b0252ef4383/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9hp7y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Alexander Etz & Joachim Vandekerckhove, 2016. "A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    2. Zenker, Frank & Witte, Erich H., 2021. "The case for default point-H1-hypotheses: a theory-construction perspective," OSF Preprints zue4h, Center for Open Science.
    3. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    5. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    6. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Aurelie Seguin & Wolfgang Forstmeier, 2012. "No Band Color Effects on Male Courtship Rate or Body Mass in the Zebra Finch: Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-11, June.
    9. Dragana Radicic & Geoffrey Pugh & Hugo Hollanders & René Wintjes & Jon Fairburn, 2016. "The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1425-1452, December.
    10. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Diekmann Andreas, 2011. "Are Most Published Research Findings False?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 628-635, October.
    12. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    13. Kirthi Kalyanam & John McAteer & Jonathan Marek & James Hodges & Lifeng Lin, 2018. "Cross channel effects of search engine advertising on brick & mortar retail sales: Meta analysis of large scale field experiments on Google.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-42, March.
    14. Nazila Alinaghi & W. Robert Reed, 2021. "Taxes and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: A Meta-analysis," Public Finance Review, , vol. 49(1), pages 3-40, January.
    15. Isaiah Andrews & Maximilian Kasy, 2019. "Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2766-2794, August.
    16. Michaelides, Michael, 2021. "Large sample size bias in empirical finance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Michael L. Marlow, 2008. "Honestly, Who Else Would Fund Such Research? Reflections of a Non-Smoking Scholar," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 240-268, May.
    18. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    19. Michele Lungaroni & Andrea Murari & Emmanuele Peluso & Pasqualino Gaudio & Michela Gelfusa, 2019. "Geodesic Distance on Gaussian Manifolds to Reduce the Statistical Errors in the Investigation of Complex Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-24, August.
    20. Li Liu & Qinji Su & Lixia Li & Xiaohui Lin & Yu Gan & Sidong Chen, 2014. "The Common Variant rs4444235 near BMP4 Confers Genetic Susceptibility of Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis Based on a Comprehensive Statistical Strategy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:9hp7y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.