2016
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/97gpc
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t-Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses

Abstract: Scientists should be able to provide support for the absence of a meaningful effect. Currently researchers often incorrectly conclude an effect is absent based a non-significant result. A widely recommended approach within a Frequentist framework is to test for equivalence. In equivalence tests, such as the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) procedure discussed in this article, an upper and lower equivalence bound is specified based on the smallest effect size of interest. The TOST procedure can be used to statistical… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
890
0
29

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 667 publications
(964 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
12
890
0
29
Order By: Relevance
“…La adopción de pruebas de equivalencia evitará las malas interpretaciones comunes de valores p no significativos" (Lakens, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…La adopción de pruebas de equivalencia evitará las malas interpretaciones comunes de valores p no significativos" (Lakens, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…This intuition was used to establish equivalence bounds (Lakens, 2017) in order to be clearer about whether the data justify acceptance of the null hypothesis, as opposed to mere failure to reject it. Considering an effect of intervention no greater than the estimated effect of stimulus quality as uninterestingly small, we used the least extreme of these two estimates (24.07) to set lower and upper equivalence bounds.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to examine whether the effect sizes in our sample on associations between FAbody and 468 mating success are statistically different from previously reported mean effect sizes, we conducted 469 equivalence tests using R package TOSTER (Lakens, 2017). As the effect sizes of interest (equivalence 470 bounds) we used the mean from the range of plausible mean estimates reported in a recent meta-471 analysis by Grebe, Falcon and Gangestad (2017).…”
Section: Equivalence Tests 467mentioning
confidence: 99%