Rubin, Mark (2024) Type I error rates are not usually inflated. Journal of Trial and Error, 4 (2). pp. 46-71.
This is the latest version of this item.
|
Text
Rubin (2024) - Type I Error Rates are Not Usually Inflated.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (358kB) |
Abstract
The inflation of Type I error rates is thought to be one of the causes of the replication crisis. Questionable research practices such as p-hacking are thought to inflate Type I error rates above their nominal level, leading to unexpectedly high levels of false positives in the literature and, consequently, unexpectedly low replication rates. In this article, I offer an alternative view. I argue that questionable and other research practices do not usually inflate relevant Type I error rates. I begin by introducing the concept of Type I error rates and distinguishing between statistical errors and theoretical errors. I then illustrate my argument with respect to model misspecification, multiple testing, selective inference, forking paths, exploratory analyses, p-hacking, optional stopping, double dipping, and HARKing. In each case, I demonstrate that relevant Type I error rates are not usually inflated above their nominal level, and in the rare cases that they are, the inflation is easily identified and resolved. I conclude that the replication crisis may be explained, at least in part, by researchers’ misinterpretation of statistical errors and their underestimation of theoretical errors.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Published Article or Volume | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
||||||
| Keywords: | exploratory analyses; false positives; forking paths; HARKing; model misspecification; multiple comparisons; multiple testing; optional stopping; p-hacking; questionable research practices; replication crisis; selective inference; significance testing; statistical inference; Type I error inflation; Type I error rate inflation; Type I error rates | ||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Data General Issues > Evidence General Issues > Explanation General Issues > Models and Idealization Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics Specific Sciences > Psychology |
||||||
| Depositing User: | Dr Mark Rubin | ||||||
| Date Deposited: | 29 Dec 2024 19:29 | ||||||
| Last Modified: | 29 Dec 2024 19:29 | ||||||
| Item ID: | 24453 | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Journal of Trial and Error | ||||||
| Official URL: | https://doi.org/10.36850/4d35-44bd | ||||||
| DOI or Unique Handle: | 10.36850/4d35-44bd | ||||||
| Subjects: | General Issues > Data General Issues > Evidence General Issues > Explanation General Issues > Models and Idealization Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics Specific Sciences > Psychology |
||||||
| Date: | 16 November 2024 | ||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 46-71 | ||||||
| Volume: | 4 | ||||||
| Number: | 2 | ||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/24453 |
Available Versions of this Item
-
Type I error rates are not usually inflated. (deposited 15 Dec 2023 03:03)
-
Type I Error Rates are Not Usually Inflated. (deposited 05 Jan 2024 03:06)
-
Type I Error Rates are Not Usually Inflated. (deposited 16 Nov 2024 13:51)
- Type I error rates are not usually inflated. (deposited 29 Dec 2024 19:29) [Currently Displayed]
-
Type I Error Rates are Not Usually Inflated. (deposited 16 Nov 2024 13:51)
-
Type I Error Rates are Not Usually Inflated. (deposited 05 Jan 2024 03:06)
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
![]() |
View Item |



