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
-
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.
Yes, of course. But in terms of their crappy design, null hypothesis is no difference between age-graded scores pre & post-transition (because post score is age-graded score for women). High p-values means you fail to reject null hypothesis. That's why they're being quoted.
-
-
The scientifically responsible strategy for them would of been to 1) perform an equivalence test (but the n requirement would be too large), or 2) show that if there was a true important difference they would likely have significant p-values. They went with neither strategy.
-
Pre-test, post-test design in real world conditions, given a gap of a year, is always going to be nightmarisly difficult to control. I'm not sure if could be done.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Problem though is the athletic performance of sub-elite athletes varies significantly year by year. Real life gets in the way. It'd have to be a bloody big cohort to control for all the noise. My age-graded score would vary by 20 points depending on how many donuts I'd snarfed!
- 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.