Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Psychol Methods. 2010 Jun;15(2):182-91. doi: 10.1037/a0016955.
In his article, "An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests," Killeen (2005) urged the discipline to abandon the practice of p obs-based null hypothesis testing and to quantify the signal-to-noise characteristics of experimental outcomes with replication probabilities. He described the coefficient that he invented, prep, as the probability of obtaining "an effect of the same sign as that found in an original experiment" (Killeen, 2005, p. 346). The journal Psychological Science quickly came to encourage researchers to employ prep, rather than p obs, in the reporting of their experimental findings. In the current article, we (a) establish that Killeen's derivation of prep contains an error, the result of which is that prep is not, in fact, the probability that Killeen set out to derive; (b) establish that prep is not a replication probability of any kind but, rather, is a quasi-power coefficient; and (c) suggest that Killeen has mischaracterized both the relationship between replication probabilities and statistical inference, and the kinds of claims that are licensed by knowledge of the value assumed by the replication probability that he attempted to derive.
在他的文章《对零假设显著性检验的另一种选择》中，基林（2005）敦促该学科放弃基于 p 值的零假设检验实践，并使用复制概率来量化实验结果的信号与噪声特征。他描述了他发明的系数 prep，是指获得“与原始实验中发现的效应具有相同符号的效应”的概率（Killeen，2005，第 346 页）。《心理科学》杂志很快就鼓励研究人员在报告实验结果时使用 prep，而不是 p 值。在本文中，我们（a）确定基林对 prep 的推导存在错误，其结果是 prep 实际上不是他试图推导的概率；（b）确定 prep 不是任何类型的复制概率，而是准功效系数；（c）表明基林错误地描述了复制概率与统计推断之间的关系，以及由他试图推导的复制概率的假设值所允许的各种主张。
