18 Oct
2016
18 Oct
'16
11:44 a.m.
Tisztelt Kollégák!
Ezúton szeretném meghívni Önöket az MTA TTK Agyi Képalkotó Központ
szervezésében megrendezésre kerülő következő előadásra, amelyet dr.
Szűcs Dénes (Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK) fog
tartani "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the
recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" címmel.
Az előadás időpontja:
2016. október 21. (péntek) 15:00 óra
Az előadás helyszíne:
MTA TTK földszinti kis konferenciaterme (1117 Budapest, Magyar tudósok
körútja 2.)
Sok szeretettel várunk mindenkit, a meghívót nyugodtan továbbítsák
minden potenciális érdeklődőnek.
Részvételi szándékukat, kérem, jelezzék az a következő e-mail címen:
weiss.bela(a)ttk.mta.hu
Tisztelettel,
Weiss Béla
MTA TTK Agyi Képalkotó Központ
Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent
cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature
Denes Szucs*1, John PA Ioannidis2
1) Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK
2) Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Department
of Medicine, Department of Health Research and Policy, and Department of
Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA
* Correspondence: Denes Szucs; ds377(a)cam.ac.uk
Abstract:
We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes
and estimated power by extracting more than 100,000 statistical records
from about 10,000 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published
during the past 5 years. The reported median effect size was d=0.93
(inter-quartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically
significant results and d=0.24 (0.11-0.42) for non-significant results.
Median power to detect small, medium and large effects was 0.12, 0.44
and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. Power
was lowest for cognitive neuroscience journals. 14% of papers reported
some statistically significant results, although the respective F
statistic and degrees of freedom proved that these were non-significant;
p value errors positively correlated with journal impact factors. False
report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In
light of our findings the recently reported low replication success in
psychology is realistic and worse performance may be expected for
cognitive neuroscience.