5 ms·

Sure, do that. But also: > The power analysis used a power criterion of (1 − β) = 0.80, which indicated that a mean cell size of n = 54 was sufficient to repl

by raddan 4y ago

Sure, do that. But also: > The power analysis used a power criterion of (1 − β) = 0.80, which indicated that a mean cell size of n = 54 was sufficient to replicate significant effects of acetaminophen. The question is not whether n=114 is "large enough" because that question, by itself, does not make sense. The question is whether n=114 is "large enough for the observed effect." Given that the p-values for the "personal pleasure" and "empathetic feelings" measures are under 0.001, the answer is "yes," potential methodological issues notwithstanding.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
teaearlgrey_hot 4y ago
Disagree from experience. I find it far more likely that they considered how to skew the p-values low enough to where they become significant. “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me. All studies that use terms like that have a section that explains how they are measuring it, how other studies have used the same measure and how that measure itself is tested for reproducibility and accuracy.
  - ngvrnd 4y ago
    doesn't necessarily mean they are ACTUALLY measuring anything real. just sayin'
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      So without training in the field, having read about the specific example or anything else, you can say the entire study is trash?
      - teaearlgrey_hot 4y ago
      - harry8 4y ago
        Pretty sure caution was what was advised with no opinion one way or the other. Being extra cautious about preliminary psych findings is only sensible. It might be considered batshit crazy to do anything else given the issues we've found out about in that field. Does it reproduce? Is the right question to ask.
      - captainbland 4y ago
        I'd think of it more like such studies being potential stepping stones towards the establishment of scientific facts, rather than establishing those facts alone. But it will take more work and by separate groups before anyone can have faith that these findings are meaningful - especially given the background of the reproducibility crisis.

by raddan 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

teaearlgrey_hot 4y ago

Disagree from experience. I find it far more likely that they considered how to skew the p-values low enough to where they become significant. “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me.

HWR_14 4y ago
> “Personal pleasure” & “Empathetic feelings” do NOT sound like terms which correlate to reproducibility to me. All studies that use terms like that have a section that explains how they are measuring it, how other studies have used the same measure and how that measure itself is tested for reproducibility and accuracy.
- ngvrnd 4y ago
  doesn't necessarily mean they are ACTUALLY measuring anything real. just sayin'
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    So without training in the field, having read about the specific example or anything else, you can say the entire study is trash?
    - teaearlgrey_hot 4y ago
    - harry8 4y ago
      Pretty sure caution was what was advised with no opinion one way or the other. Being extra cautious about preliminary psych findings is only sensible. It might be considered batshit crazy to do anything else given the issues we've found out about in that field. Does it reproduce? Is the right question to ask.
    - captainbland 4y ago
      I'd think of it more like such studies being potential stepping stones towards the establishment of scientific facts, rather than establishing those facts alone. But it will take more work and by separate groups before anyone can have faith that these findings are meaningful - especially given the background of the reproducibility crisis.