University of New Mexico.
Dev Psychopathol. 2017 Oct;29(4):1267-1278. doi: 10.1017/S0954579416001292. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
Statistical tests of differential susceptibility have become standard in the empirical literature, and are routinely used to adjudicate between alternative developmental hypotheses. However, their performance and limitations have never been systematically investigated. In this paper I employ Monte Carlo simulations to explore the functioning of three commonly used tests proposed by Roisman et al. (2012). Simulations showed that critical tests of differential susceptibility require considerably larger samples than standard power calculations would suggest. The results also showed that existing criteria for differential susceptibility based on the proportion of interaction index (i.e., values between .40 and .60) are especially likely to produce false negatives and highly sensitive to assumptions about interaction symmetry. As an initial response to these problems, I propose a revised test based on a broader window of proportion of interaction index values (between .20 and .80). Additional simulations showed that the revised test outperforms existing tests of differential susceptibility, considerably improving detection with little effect on the rate of false positives. I conclude by noting the limitations of a purely statistical approach to differential susceptibility, and discussing the implications of the present results for the interpretation of published findings and the design of future studies in this area.
差异易感性的统计检验已成为实证文献中的标准方法,常用于裁决替代发展假设。然而,它们的性能和局限性从未得到系统的研究。在本文中,我采用蒙特卡罗模拟方法来探索罗伊斯曼等人(2012 年)提出的三种常用检验的功能。模拟结果表明,差异易感性的关键检验需要比标准功效计算建议的样本量大得多。结果还表明,基于相互作用指数比例(即 0.40 到 0.60 之间的值)的现有差异易感性标准特别容易产生假阴性,并且高度依赖于相互作用对称性的假设。作为对这些问题的初步回应,我提出了一种基于更广泛的相互作用指数比例范围(0.20 到 0.80 之间)的修订检验。进一步的模拟表明,修订后的检验优于现有的差异易感性检验,在对假阳性率影响很小的情况下,大大提高了检测率。最后,我注意到差异易感性的纯统计方法的局限性,并讨论了本研究结果对解释已发表发现和设计该领域未来研究的影响。