Elusive alpha and beta control in a multicausal world
Virtually all scientific outlets, including the most prestigious journals, have implemented strict rules of α and (1-β) control, supposed to quantify the probability of a significant result assuming H0 and H1, respectively. However, estimation of α and β rests on the untenable assumption that a syst...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumenttyp: | Article (Journal) |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
20 Jan 2020
|
| In: |
Basic & applied social psychology
Year: 2020, Jahrgang: 42, Heft: 2, Pages: 79-87 |
| ISSN: | 1532-4834 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/01973533.2020.1714622 |
| Online-Zugang: | Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1714622
|
| Verfasserangaben: | Klaus Fiedler |
| Zusammenfassung: | Virtually all scientific outlets, including the most prestigious journals, have implemented strict rules of α and (1-β) control, supposed to quantify the probability of a significant result assuming H0 and H1, respectively. However, estimation of α and β rests on the untenable assumption that a systematic effect ΔY in the dependent variable cannot be brought about by any other causal influence than the influence ΔX stated in H1 and negated in H0. Yet, in a given study, empirical evidence on ΔY related to ΔX can always reflect extraneous causal influences, because no treatment or measurement tool affords a pure measure of X and Y, respectively. Consequently, α and β cannot quantify error probabilities in specific studies. |
|---|---|
| Beschreibung: | Gesehen am 23.12.2020 |
| Beschreibung: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1532-4834 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/01973533.2020.1714622 |