IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ur5at.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

P > 0.05 is Good: The NORD-h Protocol for Multiple Hypotheses Analysis Based on Known Risks, Costs, and Benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Rovetta, Alessandro

    (Mensana srls)

Abstract

Based on the most recent literature on statistical testing in public health, this paper introduces and discusses a new protocol, called NORD-h (null-optimal-risky-detrimental hypotheses), for interval hypothesis analysis using surprisals. In particular, the aim is to promote statistical and scientific reasoning in terms of costs, risks, and benefits for the stakeholders without falling into merely subjective choices. The authors are confident and hopeful that these novel interpretation methods can prevent common and highly damaging statistical fallacies like nullism and the adoption of dichotomic thresholds.

Suggested Citation

  • Rovetta, Alessandro, 2024. "P > 0.05 is Good: The NORD-h Protocol for Multiple Hypotheses Analysis Based on Known Risks, Costs, and Benefits," OSF Preprints ur5at, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ur5at
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ur5at
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65c0f0463280d80856a3adab/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ur5at?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. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal & Andrew Gelman & Christian Robert & Jennifer L. Tackett, 2019. "Abandon Statistical Significance," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 235-245, March.
    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. Zachary Van Winkle & Anette Fasang, 2021. "The complexity of employment and family life courses across 20th century Europe: More evidence for larger cross-national differences but little change across 1916‒1966 birth cohorts," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(32), pages 775-810.
    2. Fanelli, Daniele, 2020. "Metascientific reproducibility patterns revealed by informatic measure of knowledge," MetaArXiv 5vnhj, Center for Open Science.
    3. Diana W. Thomas & Michael D. Thomas, 2020. "Behavioral symmetry, rent seeking, and the Republic of Science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 443-459, June.
    4. Bertoni, M.; & Marin-Lopez, B.A.; & Sanz-de-Galdeano, A.;, 2023. "Subjective Gender-Based Patterns in ADHD Diagnosis," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 23/17, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    6. David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.
    7. Asatryan, Zareh & Havlik, Annika & Heinemann, Friedrich & Nover, Justus, 2020. "Biases in fiscal multiplier estimates," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Austin Chia & Margaret L. Kern, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing and the Social Responsibilities of Business: an Exploratory Investigation of Australian Perspectives," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1881-1908, October.
    9. Hirschauer, Norbert & Grüner, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Claudia, 2020. "Inference in economic experiments," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-14.
    10. Breuer, Matthias & Breuer, Patricia, 2022. "Uneven regulation and economic reallocation: Evidence from transparency regulation," LawFin Working Paper Series 43, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    11. Daniel A. Griffith, 2020. "A Family of Correlated Observations: From Independent to Strongly Interrelated Ones," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Bertoni, Marco & Marin-Lopez, Blas A. & Sanz-de-Galdeano, Anna, 2023. "Subjective Gender-Based Patterns in ADHD Diagnosis," IZA Discussion Papers 16634, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    14. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    15. Sander Greenland, 2023. "Divergence versus decision P‐values: A distinction worth making in theory and keeping in practice: Or, how divergence P‐values measure evidence even when decision P‐values do not," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 50(1), pages 54-88, March.
    16. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan & Sarafoglou, Alexandra & Aarts, Sil Dr. & Albers, Casper J & Algermissen, Johannes & Bahník, Štěpán & van Dongen, Noah N'Djaye Nikolai & Hoekstra, Rink & Moreau, David & van Rav, 2021. "Toward More Transparency in Statistical Practice," MetaArXiv t93cg, Center for Open Science.
    17. Rigdon, Edward E., 2023. "How improper dichotomization and the misrepresentation of uncertainty undermine social science research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    18. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Neves, Kleber & Tan, Pedro Batista & Amaral, Olavo Bohrer, 2021. "Are Most Published Research Findings False In A Continuous Universe?," MetaArXiv jk7sa, Center for Open Science.
    20. Jerome Massiani, 2022. "Lost in taxation," Working Papers 501, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.

    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:ur5at. 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.