An inferential confidence interval method of establishing statistical equivalence that corrects Tryon's (2001) reduction factor.

Evidence of group matching frequently takes the form of a nonsignificant test of statistical difference. Theoretical hypotheses of no difference are also tested in this way. These practices are flawed in that null hypothesis statistical testing provides evidence against the null hypothesis and failing to reject H? is not evidence supportive of it. Tests of statistical equivalence are needed. This article corrects the inferential confidence interval (ICI) reduction factor introduced by W. W. Tryon (2001) and uses it to extend his discussion of statistical equivalence. This method is shown to be algebraically equivalent with D. J. Schuirmann's (1987) use of 2 one-sided t tests, a highly regarded and accepted method of testing for statistical equivalence. The ICI method provides an intuitive graphic method for inferring statistical difference as well as equivalence. Trivial difference occurs when a test of difference and a test of equivalence are both passed. Statistical indeterminacy results when both tests are failed. Hybrid confidence intervals are introduced that impose ICI limits on standard confidence intervals. These intervals are recommended as replacements for error bars because they facilitate inferences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation.

As a potential alternative to standard null hypothesis significance testing, we describe methods for graphical presentation of data--particularly condition means and their corresponding confidence intervals--for a wide range of factorial designs used in experimental psychology. We describe and illustrate confidence intervals specifically appropriate for between-subject versus within-subject factors. For designs involving more than two levels of a factor, we describe the use of contrasts for graphical illustration of theoretically meaningful components of main effects and interactions. These graphical techniques lend themselves to a natural and straightforward assessment of statistical power. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The proof of the pudding: An illustration of the relative strengths of null hypothesis, meta-analysis, and Bayesian analysis.

Some methodologists have recently suggested that scientific psychology's overreliance on null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) impedes the progress of the discipline. In response, a number of defenders have maintained that NHST continues to play a vital role in psychological research. Both sides of the argument to date have been presented abstractly. The authors take a different approach to this issue by illustrating the use of NHST along with 2 possible alternatives (meta-analysis as a primary data analysis strategy and Bayesian approaches) in a series of 3 studies. Comparing and contrasting the approaches on actual data brings out the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The exercise demonstrates that the approaches are not mutually exclusive but instead can be used to complement one another. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Random assignment of available cases: Bootstrap standard errors and confidence intervals.

A frequently used experimental design in psychological research randomly divides a set of available cases, a local population, between 2 treatments and then applies an independent-samples t test to either test a hypothesis about or estimate a confidence interval (CI) for the population mean difference in treatment response. C. S. Reichardt and H. F. Gollob (1999) established that the t test can be conservative for this design--yielding hypothesis test P values that are too large or CIs that are too wide for the relevant local population. This article develops a less conservative approach to local population inference, one based on the logic of B. Efron's (1979) nonparametric bootstrap. The resulting randomization bootstrap is then compared with an established approach to local population inference, that based on randomization or permutation tests. Finally, the importance of local population inference is established by reference to the distinction between statistical and scientific inference. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical inference for a linear function of medians: Confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, and sample size requirements.

When the distribution of the response variable is skewed, the population median may be a more meaningful measure of centrality than the population mean, and when the population distribution of the response variable has heavy tails, the sample median may be a more efficient estimator of centrality than the sample mean. The authors propose a confidence interval for a general linear function of population medians. Linear functions have many important special cases including pairwise comparisons, main effects, interaction effects, simple main effects, curvature, and slope. The confidence interval can be used to test 2-sided directional hypotheses and finite interval hypotheses. Sample size formulas are given for both interval estimation and hypothesis testing problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Persistence of Underpowered Studies in Psychological Research: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies.

Underpowered studies persist in the psychological literature. This article examines reasons for their persistence and the effects on efforts to create a cumulative science. The "curse of multiplicities" plays a central role in the presentation. Most psychologists realize that testing multiple hypotheses in a single study affects the Type I error rate, but corresponding implications for power have largely been ignored. The presence of multiple hypothesis tests leads to 3 different conceptualizations of power. Implications of these 3 conceptualizations are discussed from the perspective of the individual researcher and from the perspective of developing a coherent literature. Supplementing significance tests with effect size measures and confidence intervals is shown to address some but not necessarily all problems associated with multiple testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)