10.2 Blinding: Difference between revisions
More actions
// Edit via Wikitext Extension for VSCode |
// Edit via Wikitext Extension for VSCode |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
|description=A short video about this process.}} | |description=A short video about this process.}} | ||
{{Line}} | {{Line}} | ||
''' | '''<math>p</math>-hacking and Preregistration''' | ||
: | : One way in which <math>p</math>-hacking could occur is to choose or alter the analysis method after one has seen the results of that method to be undesirable. As an example, suppose a psychologist performs an experiment with 100 participants, sees that the results are at a statistical significance of <math>p</math> = 0.06, just shy of the <math>p</math> < 0.05 threshold for publication. They then decide to recruit another 100 participants to "improve their results", finally leading to <math>p</math> = 0.04, good enough for publication. This is a form of p-hacking, as p-values can dip below 0.05 as one slowly increases the sample size simply by random chance. To guard against this phenomenon, the sample size of a study is a required item in the preregistration process. | ||
{{LinkCard | |||
|url=https://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/318451_8dbb1fba8952424fb722196f98587429.html | |||
|title=<math>p</math>-hacking: A Demonstration | |||
|description=A demonstration of this type of <math>p</math>-hacking.}} | |||
|-|Common Misconceptions= | |-|Common Misconceptions= | ||
Revision as of 08:54, 14 August 2023

Blind analysis, the practice of deciding how we will analyze data before finding out if the analysis we have chosen supports our hypothesis, counteracts confirmation bias.
The Lesson in Context
This lesson offers solutions to potential pitfalls in scientific studies raised in 10.1 Confirmation Bias and 4.2 Finding Patterns in Random Noise. We use a stick measurement activity to illustrate the effects of confirmation bias and to motivate techniques to reduce its effect, especially blind analysis. These techniques are not universally employed in all fields of science today, and students pursuing a scientific career are encouraged to introduce these techniques in their own work.
Takeaways
After this lesson, students should
- Recognize what types of blinding are useful for solving what types of errors.
- Be able to explain why blind analysis might be needed, by explaining the errors that can arise in its absence.
- Recognize when blind analysis is being used and explain what function it serves. Identify situations and decisions in which blind analysis would be useful.
- Be able to evaluate techniques (e.g., registered replication, adversarial collaboration, peer review)
- for ability to address confirmation bias, and
- in comparison to blind analysis.
- Propose how to use blind analysis for simple studies.
Blind Analysis
Double Blind
Preregistration
Registered Replication
Registered Reports
Adversarial Collaboration
Peer Review
Muon [math]\displaystyle{ g }[/math]−2 Experiment
- This experiment performed highly precise measurements of the magnetic dipole moment of muons to test the theoretical predictions of the currently accepted model of elementary particles. Blinding is done by injecting a secret code into all of the data that would undergo analysis, so that the scientists involved would not make specific choices in the analysis in a way that makes the final value agree with the theoretical prediction. The secret code was kept in a physical locker, the opening of which was highly publicized in the announcement event. Once the data was "unscrambled", the result shows that there is indeed a sizeable deviation of the measured value from the theoretical prediction.
[math]\displaystyle{ p }[/math]-hacking and Preregistration
- One way in which [math]\displaystyle{ p }[/math]-hacking could occur is to choose or alter the analysis method after one has seen the results of that method to be undesirable. As an example, suppose a psychologist performs an experiment with 100 participants, sees that the results are at a statistical significance of [math]\displaystyle{ p }[/math] = 0.06, just shy of the [math]\displaystyle{ p }[/math] < 0.05 threshold for publication. They then decide to recruit another 100 participants to "improve their results", finally leading to [math]\displaystyle{ p }[/math] = 0.04, good enough for publication. This is a form of p-hacking, as p-values can dip below 0.05 as one slowly increases the sample size simply by random chance. To guard against this phenomenon, the sample size of a study is a required item in the preregistration process.
[Description of misconception.]
[Description of misconception.]
Useful Resources
[[address] Discussion Slides Template]
[[address] The discussion slides for this lesson.]
[[address] [Title]]
[[address] [Description.]]
[[address] [Title]]
[[address] [Description.]]
[[address] [Title]]
[[address] [Description.]]
[[address] [Title]]
[[address] [Description.]]
Recommended Outline
Before Class
[Any steps that need to be taken before class.]
During Class
| [n] Minutes | [Activity.] |
| [n] Minutes | [Activity.] |
Lesson Content
Activity 1
[Brief description of and motivation for the activity]
[Common misconception or thing to look out for.]
[Thing you really need to look out for!]
[Title]
[Useful tip, guideline, or other background.]
Instructions
| [n] Minutes | [Activity.] |
| [n] Minutes | [Activity.] |
Discussion Questions
[Question 1]
[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]
[Intended answer to the above question.]
[Question 2]
[Possible misconception that may need to be corrected and clarified.]
[Intended answer to the above question.]