Multiple Perspectives on Inference for Two Simple Statistical Scenariosvan Dongen, N. N. N., van Doorn, J. B., Gronau, Q. F., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Hoekstra, R., Haucke, M. N., Lakens, D., Hennig, C., Morey, R. D., Homer, S., Gelman, A., Sprenger, J. & Wagenmakers, E-J., 2019, In : American statistician. 73, p. 328-339 12 p.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
When data analysts operate within different statistical frameworks (e.g., frequentist versus Bayesian, emphasis on estimation versus emphasis on testing), how does this impact the qualitative conclusions that are drawn for real data? To study this question empirically we selected from the literature two simple scenarios-involving a comparison of two proportions and a Pearson correlation-and asked four teams of statisticians to provide a concise analysis and a qualitative interpretation of the outcome. The results showed considerable overall agreement; nevertheless, this agreement did not appear to diminish the intensity of the subsequent debate over which statistical framework is more appropriate to address the questions at hand.
|Number of pages||12|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|
- Frequentist or Bayesian, Multilab analysis, Statistical paradigms, Testing or estimation, ISNT EVERYONE, EQUIVALENCE, TESTS