Kudos to transwoman Joanna Harper for debating the science around male performance advantage in trans-athletes. Listen to the interview when it's broadcast on Saturday 9th between 10-11am on @bbcworldservice
Show this thread
-
I don't think I've ever seen such high p values quoted in a published study! p=1 means data is no more than random chance. p<0.05 is valid result. The Harper study is recording p values of 0.84 and 0.68!! https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6a/bd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a.pdf?_ga=2.254440527.659551599.1550520323-1192624875.1550520323 …pic.twitter.com/Twp4KfJA72
Yes, but they're trying to make the point there isn't a significant difference. That's a win for them.
-
-
If a reasonable scientist was there, they should of asked what was the design's ability to detect meaningful differences. The answer would of not been convincing.
-
You know all this, of course, but there seems to be some confusion. Problem here isn't p-values. We don't even get that far because design is hopeless. Absolutely zero control of confounding variables.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.