What's a reasonable evidence standard (alpha) using NHST to require for claims of interactions for ordinary individual-level research? (I.e. more data relatively easy to collect). Assume that we switch to the new standard of .005 for main effects. #statistics #replicationcrisis
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
I’m inclined to say lower than for the main effect, for purely sociological reasons, people try to milk interactions too hard
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Scientific_Bird @KirkegaardEmil
Forgot my Gelman https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/03/15/need-16-times-sample-size-estimate-interaction-estimate-main-effect/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
My doubt here is: Assume the interaction is fake news. Then, lowering p will mean (per Gelman) that when you do detect an effect, it will be misleadingly large. If it is true, but small, then lowering p might lead to not detecting it. Its trade offs all the way down
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Scientific_Bird @KirkegaardEmil
Alternatively, what about a sample size constraint ? As in if you want to report interactions, then calculate SS for main effect,then that *16 or gtfo
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@jonatanpallesen already did a bunch of this. These underpowered interactions do not 'replicate' (p<.05) much more than chance level. http://rpubs.com/Jonatan/interactions …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.