Abstract
Background
Statistical methods for inferring the true magnitude of an effect from a sample should have acceptable error rates when the true effect is trivial (type I rates) or substantial (type II rates).
Objective
The objective of this study was to quantify the error rates, rates of decisive (publishable) outcomes and publication bias of five inferential methods commonly used in sports medicine and science. The methods were conventional null-hypothesis significance testing [NHST] (significant and non-significant imply substantial and trivial true effects, respectively); conservative NHST (the observed magnitude is interpreted as the true magnitude only for significant effects); non-clinical magnitude-based inference [MBI] (the true magnitude is interpreted as the magnitude range of the 90 % confidence interval only for intervals not spanning substantial values of the opposite sign); clinical MBI (a possibly beneficial effect is recommended for implementation only if it is most unlikely to be harmful); and odds-ratio clinical MBI (implementation is also recommended when the odds of benefit outweigh the odds of harm, with an odds ratio >66).
Methods
Simulation was used to quantify standardized mean effects in 500,000 randomized, controlled trials each for true standardized magnitudes ranging from null through marginally moderate with three sample sizes: suboptimal (10 + 10), optimal for MBI (50 + 50) and optimal for NHST (144 + 144).
Results
Type I rates for non-clinical MBI were always lower than for NHST. When type I rates for clinical MBI were higher, most errors were debatable, given the probabilistic qualification of those inferences (unlikely or possibly beneficial). NHST often had unacceptable rates for either type II errors or decisive outcomes, and it had substantial publication bias with the smallest sample size, whereas MBI had no such problems.
Conclusion
MBI is a trustworthy, nuanced alternative to NHST, which it outperforms in terms of the sample size, error rates, decision rates and publication bias.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carver R. The case against statistical significance testing. Harv Educ Rev. 1978;48:378–99.
Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05). Am Psychol. 1994;49:997–1003.
Stang A, Poole C, Kuss O. The ongoing tyranny of statistical significance testing in biomedical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:225–30.
Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN. The cult of statistical significance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2008.
Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014;25:7–29.
Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, et al. The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods. 2015;12:179–85.
Nuzzo R. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014;506:150–2.
Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1:50–7.
Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3–12.
Gurrin LC, Kurinczuk JJ, Burton PR. Bayesian statistics in medical research: an intuitive alternative to conventional data analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;6:193–204.
Shakespeare TP, Gebski VJ, Veness MJ, et al. Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk–benefit contours. Lancet. 2001;357:1349–53.
Welsh AH, Knight EJ. “Magnitude-based inference”: a statistical review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:874–84.
Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. The case for magnitude-based inference. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:885.
Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a P value. Sportscience. 2007;11:16–20.
Barker RJ, Schofield MR. Inference about magnitudes of effects. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3:547–57.
Hopkins WG, Batterham AM. An imaginary Bayesian monster. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;3:411–2.
Gigerenzer G. Mindless statistics. J Socio Econ. 2004;33:587–606.
Schneider JW. Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations. Scientometrics. 2015;102:411–32.
Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1994.
Burton PR, Gurrin LC, Campbell MJ. Clinical significance not statistical significance: a simple Bayesian alternative to P values. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:318–23.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.
Burton PR. Helping doctors to draw appropriate inferences from the analysis of medical studies. Stat Med. 1994;13:1699–713.
Hopkins WG. Estimating sample size for magnitude-based inferences. Sportscience. 2006;10:63–70.
Becker BJ. Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1988;41:257–78.
Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, et al. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):MR000006.
Hughes MD. Reporting Bayesian analyses of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:1651–63.
George K, Batterham AM. So what does this all mean? Phys Ther Sport. 2015;16:1–2.
Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference Elicitation in Trials) review. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(28):v–vi, 1–175.
Gigerenzer G, Marewski JN. Surrogate science: the idol of a universal method for scientific inference. J Manage. 2015;41:421–40.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Kenneth Quarrie for his valuable feedback on drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Will G. Hopkins and Alan M. Batterham have no conflicts of interest to declare with regard to this publication. No funding was received for the conduct of this study and/or the preparation of this manuscript.
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0530-0.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hopkins, W.G., Batterham, A.M. Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias with Several Inferential Methods. Sports Med 46, 1563–1573 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0517-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0517-x