Type M Error Might Explain Weisburd’s Paradox

Simple calculations seem to show that larger studies should have higher statistical power, but empirical meta-analyses of published work in criminology have found zero or weak correlations between sample size and estimated statistical power. This is “Weisburd’s paradox” and has been attributed by We...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gelman, Andrew 1965- (Author)
Contributors: Aaltonen, Mikko ; Skardhamar, Torbjørn
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2020
In: Journal of quantitative criminology
Year: 2020, Volume: 36, Issue: 2, Pages: 295-304
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Keywords:
Publication bias
Statistical power
Type M error
Weisburd paradox

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1734039264
003 DE-627
005 20200930153206.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200930s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10940-017-9374-5  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1734039264 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1734039264 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Gelman, Andrew  |d 1965-  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)128832592  |0 (DE-627)38157864X  |0 (DE-576)174465661  |4 aut 
109 |a Gelman, Andrew 1965-  |a Gelman, A. 1965- 
245 1 0 |a Type M Error Might Explain Weisburd’s Paradox 
264 1 |c 2020 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Simple calculations seem to show that larger studies should have higher statistical power, but empirical meta-analyses of published work in criminology have found zero or weak correlations between sample size and estimated statistical power. This is “Weisburd’s paradox” and has been attributed by Weisburd et al. (in Crime Justice 17:337-379, 1993) to a difficulty in maintaining quality control as studies get larger, and attributed by Nelson et al. (in J Exp Criminol 11:141-163, 2015) to a negative correlation between sample sizes and the underlying sizes of the effects being measured. We argue against the necessity of both these explanations, instead suggesting that the apparent Weisburd paradox might be explainable as an artifact of systematic overestimation inherent in post-hoc power calculations, a bias that is large with small N. 
650 4 |a Publication bias 
650 4 |a Statistical power 
650 4 |a Type M error 
650 4 |a Weisburd paradox 
700 1 |a Aaltonen, Mikko  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1055010912  |0 (DE-627)79249427X  |0 (DE-576)346804078  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Skardhamar, Torbjørn  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of quantitative criminology  |d New York, NY [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1985  |g 36(2020), 2, Seite 295-304  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320578003  |w (DE-600)2017241-2  |w (DE-576)104082321  |x 1573-7799  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:36  |g year:2020  |g number:2  |g pages:295-304 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9374-5  |x Resolving-System  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3764202769 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1734039264 
LOK |0 005 20200930153430 
LOK |0 008 200930||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-21-110  |c DE-627  |d DE-21-110 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Weisburd paradox 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Type M error 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Statistical power 
LOK |0 689   |a s  |a Publication bias 
LOK |0 689   |a s 
LOK |0 689   |a s 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-21-110 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a krub  |a krzo 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3957264219 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1734039264 
LOK |0 005 20210724061701 
LOK |0 008 210724||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)KrimDok#2021-07-23#9913752988EDC5FE53F55575C553DA58DA59230D 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw