I’ve uploaded
one of my favorite lectures in the my new MOOC “Improving
Your Statistical Questions” to YouTube. It asks the question whether you
really want to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a very specific tool to
answer a very specific question. I like hypothesis tests, because in
experimental psychology it is common to perform lines of research where you can
design a bunch of studies that test simple predictions about the presence or
absence of differences on some measure. I think they have a role to play in
science. I also think hypothesis testing is widely overused. As we are starting
to do hypothesis tests better (e.g., by preregistering
our predictions and controlling our error rates in more severe tests) I predict
many people will start to feel a bit squeamish as they become aware
that doing hypothesis tests as they were originally designed to be used isn’t really want they want in
their research. One of the often overlooked gains in teaching people how to do
something well, is that they finally realize that they actually don’t want to
do it.
The lecture “Do You Really Want to Test a
Hypothesis” aims to explain which question a hypothesis tests asks, and
discusses when a hypothesis tests answers a question you are interested in. It
is very easy to say what not to do, or to point out what is wrong with
statistical tools. Statistical tools are very limited, even under ideal
circumstances. It’s more difficult to say what you can do. If you follow my work, you
know that this latter question is what I spend my time on. Instead of telling
you optional stopping can’t be done because it is p-hacking, I explain how you
can do it correctly through sequential
analysis. Instead of telling you it is wrong to conclude the absence of an
effect from p > 0.05, I explain how to use equivalence
testing. Instead of telling you p-values are the devil, I explain how they answer a question you
might be interested in when used well. Instead of saying preregistration is
redundant, I explain from which philosophy of science preregistration has value. And instead
of saying we should abandon hypothesis tests, I try to explain in this video how to use them wisely. This
is all part of my ongoing #JustifyEverything educational tour. I think it is a reasonable
expectation that researchers should be able to answer at least a simple ‘why’
question if you ask why they use a specific tool, or use a tool in a specific manner.
This might help to move beyond the
simplistic discussion I often see about these topics. If you ask me if I prefer
frequentist of Bayesian statistics, or confirmatory or exploratory research, I
am most likely to respond 無 (see Wikipedia).
It is tempting to think about these topics in a polarized either-or mindset –
but then you would miss asking the real questions. When would any approach give
you meaningful insights? Just as not every hypothesis test is an answer to a
meaningful question, so will not every exploratory study provide interesting
insights. The most important question to ask yourself when you plan a study is ‘when will the tools you use
lead to interesting insights’? In the second week of my MOOC I discuss when
effects in hypothesis tests could be deemed meaningful, but the same question
applies to exploratory or descriptive research. Not all exploration is
interesting, and we don’t want to simply describe every property of the world. Again,
it is easy to dismiss any approach to knowledge generation, but it is so much more interesting to think about which tools will
lead to interesting insights. And above all, realize that in most research
lines, researchers will have a diverse set of questions that they want to
answer given practical limitations, and they will need to rely on a diverse set
of tools, limitations and all.
In this lecture I try to explain what the three
limitations are of hypothesis tests, and the very specific question they try to
answer. If you like to think about how to improve your statistical questions, you might be interested in enrolling in my free MOOC “Improving
Your Statistical Questions”.
No comments:
Post a Comment