RESUMEN
The inferential inadequacies of statistical significance testing are now widely recognized. There is, however, no consensus on how to move research into a 'post p < 0.05' era. We present a potential route forward via the Analysis of Credibility, a novel methodology that allows researchers to go beyond the simplistic dichotomy of significance testing and extract more insight from new findings. Using standard summary statistics, AnCred assesses the credibility of significant and non-significant findings on the basis of their evidential weight, and in the context of existing knowledge. The outcome is expressed in quantitative terms of direct relevance to the substantive research question, providing greater protection against misinterpretation. Worked examples are given to illustrate how AnCred extracts additional insight from the outcome of typical research study designs. Its ability to cast light on the use of p-values, the interpretation of non-significant findings and the so-called 'replication crisis' is also discussed.
RESUMEN
The development of nutrition and health guidelines and policies requires reliable scientific information. Unfortunately, theoretical considerations and empirical evidence indicate that a large percentage of science-based claims rely on studies that fail to replicate. The session "Strategies to Optimize the Impact of Nutrition Surveys and Epidemiological Studies" focused on the elements of design, interpretation, and communication of nutritional surveys and epidemiological studies to enhance and encourage the production of reliable, objective evidence for use in developing dietary guidance for the public. The speakers called for more transparency of research, raw data, consistent data-staging techniques, and improved data analysis. New approaches to collecting data are urgently needed to increase the credibility and utility of findings from nutrition epidemiological studies. Such studies are critical for furthering our knowledge and understanding of the effects of diet on health.
Asunto(s)
Dieta/efectos adversos , Diseño de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas , Promoción de la Salud , Encuestas Nutricionales/métodos , Ciencias de la Nutrición/métodos , Congresos como Asunto , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Epidemiología/tendencias , Humanos , Política Nutricional , Encuestas Nutricionales/tendencias , Ciencias de la Nutrición/tendencias , Formulación de Políticas , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Sociedades Científicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Recent cases have highlighted the issue of faulty probabilistic reasoning by expert witnesses in courts of law. While concern about potential miscarriages of justice is clearly well-placed, the consequences of such faulty reasoning do not seem to be fully appreciated. These are often counter-intuitive, as we show with two examples: the Interrogator's Fallacy and the Prosecutor's Fallacy. Both demonstrate the danger of relying solely on 'common sense' when drawing inferences from legal evidence.
