A Bayesian Analysis of Evidence in Support of the Null Hypothesis in Gerontological Psychology (or Lack Thereof)

Brydges, Christopher; Bielak, Allison A. M.

doi:10.1093/geronb/gbz033

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are both far lower than the recommended minimum level of .80 (Cohen, 1998, 1992) and show that gerontological researchers should increase sample sizes in their studies to ensure adequate and accurate levels of statistical power. Although this is not a problem exclusive to gerontology (eg, Button et al, 2013; Dumas-Mallet, Button, Boraud, Gonon, & Munafò, 2017; Quintana, 2017; Szucs & Ioannidis, 2017), it should be a major concern and priority to those in the field (Isaacowitz, 2018; Pruchno et al, 2015) as low power weakens the strength of evidence of a research finding (Brydges & Bielak, 2019) and the probability that the finding will be successfully replicated (Maxwell, 2004). Tables 4 and 5 provide estimates for gerontological researchers to use while planning a study in the field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Brydges

2019

Innovation in Aging

Self Cite

366

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives Researchers typically use Cohen’s guidelines of Pearson’s r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen’s d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods Effect sizes (Pearson’s r, Cohen’s d, and Hedges’ g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson’s r (individual differences) and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results Effect sizes of Pearson’s r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges’ g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications Cohen’s guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson’s r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Brydges

2019

Innovation in Aging

Self Cite

366

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are both far lower than the recommended minimum level of .80 (Cohen, 1998(Cohen, , 1992, and show that gerontological researchers should increase sample sizes in their studies to ensure adequate and accurate levels of statistical power. While this is not a problem exclusive to gerontology (e.g., Button et al, 2013;Dumas-Mallet, Button, Boraud, Gonon, & Munafò, 2017;Quintana, 2017;Szucs & Ioannidis, 2017), it should be a major concern and priority to those in the field (Isaacowitz, 2018;Pruchno et al, 2015) as low power weakens the strength of evidence of a research finding (Brydges & Bielak, 2019) and…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Size Interpretation, Sample Size Calculation, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Brydges¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Researchers typically use Cohen’s guidelines of Pearson’s r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen’s d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates, and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. The current study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field.Research Design and Methods: Effect sizes (Pearson’s r, Cohen’s d, and Hedges’ g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in ten top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson’s r (individual differences) and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates.Results: Effect sizes of Pearson’s r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges’ g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications: Cohen’s guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson’s r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.

show abstract

“…We ran Bayesian hypothesis testing and calculated BF s using JASP. The BF is the ratio of the probability of one hypothesis or model over another and can quantify the relative strength of evidence for two rival hypotheses ( Brydges & Bielak, 2020 ; Love et al., 2019 ; Wagenmakers et al., 2018 ). BF 10 denotes the odds ratio favoring H 1 over H 0 , whereas BF 01 denotes the odds ratio favoring H 0 over H 1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Absolute Pitch Associated With Musical Tension Processing?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Absolute pitch (AP) is a superior ability to identify or produce musical tones without a reference tone. Although a few studies have investigated the relationship between AP and high-level music processing such as tonality and syntactic processing, very little is known about whether AP is related to musical tension processing. To address this issue, 20 AP possessors and 20 matched non-AP possessors listened to major and minor melodies and rated the levels of perceived and felt musical tension using a continuous response digital interface dial. Results indicated that the major melodies were perceived and felt as less tense than the minor ones by AP and non-AP possessors. However, there was weak evidence for no differences between AP and non-AP possessors in the perception and experience of musical tension, suggesting that AP may be independent of the processing of musical tension. The implications of these ﬁndings are discussed.

show abstract

A Bayesian Analysis of Evidence in Support of the Null Hypothesis in Gerontological Psychology (or Lack Thereof)

Cited by 21 publications

References 43 publications

Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Effect Size Interpretation, Sample Size Calculation, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Is Absolute Pitch Associated With Musical Tension Processing?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About