等效测试的实际意义:答复坎贝尔和古斯塔夫森(2022 年)。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Maximilian Linde, Jorge N Tendeiro, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Don van Ravenzwaaij
{"title":"等效测试的实际意义:答复坎贝尔和古斯塔夫森(2022 年)。","authors":"Maximilian Linde, Jorge N Tendeiro, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Don van Ravenzwaaij","doi":"10.1037/met0000549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Linde et al. (2021) compared the \"two one-sided tests\" the \"highest density interval-region of practical equivalence\", and the \"interval Bayes factor\" approaches to establishing equivalence in terms of power and Type I error rate using typical decision thresholds. They found that the interval Bayes factor approach exhibited a higher power but also a higher Type I error rate than the other approaches. In response, Campbell and Gustafson (2022) showed that the performances of the three approaches can approximate one another when they are calibrated to have the same Type I error rate. In this article, we argue that these results have little bearing on how these approaches are used in practice; a concrete example is used to highlight this important point. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":"29 3","pages":"603-605"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practical implications of equating equivalence tests: Reply to Campbell and Gustafson (2022).\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Linde, Jorge N Tendeiro, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Don van Ravenzwaaij\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Linde et al. (2021) compared the \\\"two one-sided tests\\\" the \\\"highest density interval-region of practical equivalence\\\", and the \\\"interval Bayes factor\\\" approaches to establishing equivalence in terms of power and Type I error rate using typical decision thresholds. They found that the interval Bayes factor approach exhibited a higher power but also a higher Type I error rate than the other approaches. In response, Campbell and Gustafson (2022) showed that the performances of the three approaches can approximate one another when they are calibrated to have the same Type I error rate. In this article, we argue that these results have little bearing on how these approaches are used in practice; a concrete example is used to highlight this important point. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"603-605\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000549\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000549","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Linde 等人(2021 年)比较了 "两个单边检验"、"最高密度区间-实际等效区域 "和 "区间贝叶斯因子 "方法,使用典型的决策阈值来确定等效的功率和 I 类错误率。他们发现,与其他方法相比,区间贝叶斯因子法显示出更高的功率,但 I 类错误率也更高。作为回应,Campbell 和 Gustafson(2022 年)表明,当这三种方法被校准为具有相同的 I 类错误率时,它们的性能可以相互接近。在本文中,我们认为这些结果与这些方法在实践中的应用关系不大;我们将通过一个具体的例子来强调这一点。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Practical implications of equating equivalence tests: Reply to Campbell and Gustafson (2022).

Linde et al. (2021) compared the "two one-sided tests" the "highest density interval-region of practical equivalence", and the "interval Bayes factor" approaches to establishing equivalence in terms of power and Type I error rate using typical decision thresholds. They found that the interval Bayes factor approach exhibited a higher power but also a higher Type I error rate than the other approaches. In response, Campbell and Gustafson (2022) showed that the performances of the three approaches can approximate one another when they are calibrated to have the same Type I error rate. In this article, we argue that these results have little bearing on how these approaches are used in practice; a concrete example is used to highlight this important point. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信