One of the formulas in the last post was missing a 2. Everything has now been recalculated. Some numbers changed. The basic result is that some of the numbers are not quite as dire as I had stated: the original example experiment, which had 15 participants per condition and an effect significant at p=.05 has a 51% chance of replicating (in the sense of producing another significant p-value when re-run exactly), again assuming the effect was real and the effect size is as measured in the first experiment.
Field of Science
-
-
Men Of Rock & The Big Freeze14 hours ago in History of Geology
-
Just like a Monday, Monday21 hours ago in The Phytophactor
-
-
Nobel laureate joins the autism cranks at AutismOne conference1 day ago in Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The protein makes the poison: Dancing fruit flies and terfenadine5 days ago in The Curious Wavefunction
-
-
-
When waiting is not an option1 week ago in The Allotrope
-
-
Skull Mechanics of Capitosaurs (Amphibia: Temnospondyli)2 weeks ago in Chinleana
-
Since one can't be snarky in a response to a review...3 weeks ago in Games with Words
-
-
In which I am elsewhere5 weeks ago in A is for Aspirin
-
-
Chocolate and Microbes this Easter1 month ago in The View from a Microbiologist
-
Finding a new translation factor, and verifying it with help from my experimental friends1 month ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
-
-
-
Free ImageJ Macro -- for citing images5 months ago in Skeptic Wonder
-
-
-
The Large Picture Blog Has Moved8 months ago in The Large Picture Blog
-
Lab Rat Moving House8 months ago in Life of a Lab Rat
-
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs10 months ago in Disease Prone
-
Branson getting into microbial diversity in the deep sea1 year ago in The Greenhouse
-
0 Comments:
Post a Comment