Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology

Although null hypothesis testing (NHT) is the primary method for analyzing data in many natural sciences, it has been increasingly criticized. Recently, approaches based on information theory (IT) have become popular and were held by many to be superior because it enables researchers to properly ass...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Leonardo Braga Castilho, Paulo Inácio Prado
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2021-09-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/12090.pdf
_version_ 1797417675837669376
author Leonardo Braga Castilho
Paulo Inácio Prado
author_facet Leonardo Braga Castilho
Paulo Inácio Prado
author_sort Leonardo Braga Castilho
collection DOAJ
description Although null hypothesis testing (NHT) is the primary method for analyzing data in many natural sciences, it has been increasingly criticized. Recently, approaches based on information theory (IT) have become popular and were held by many to be superior because it enables researchers to properly assess the strength of the evidence that data provide for competing hypotheses. Many studies have compared IT and NHT in the context of model selection and stepwise regression, but a systematic comparison of the most basic uses of statistics by ecologists is still lacking. We used computer simulations to compare how both approaches perform in four basic test designs (t-test, ANOVA, correlation tests, and multiple linear regression). Performance was measured by the proportion of simulated samples for which each method provided the correct conclusion (power), the proportion of detected effects with a wrong sign (S-error), and the mean ratio of the estimated effect to the true effect (M-error). We also checked if the p-value from significance tests correlated to a measure of strength of evidence, the Akaike weight. In general both methods performed equally well. The concordance is explained by the monotonic relationship between p-values and evidence weights in simple designs, which agree with analytic results. Our results show that researchers can agree on the conclusions drawn from a data set even when they are using different statistical approaches. By focusing on the practical consequences of inferences, such a pragmatic view of statistics can promote insightful dialogue among researchers on how to find a common ground from different pieces of evidence. A less dogmatic view of statistical inference can also help to broaden the debate about the role of statistics in science to the entire path that leads from a research hypothesis to a statistical hypothesis.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T06:22:04Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a671822f97af41c9b63ce467108caff1
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2167-8359
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T06:22:04Z
publishDate 2021-09-01
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format Article
series PeerJ
spelling doaj.art-a671822f97af41c9b63ce467108caff12023-12-03T11:35:52ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592021-09-019e1209010.7717/peerj.12090Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecologyLeonardo Braga Castilho0Paulo Inácio Prado1Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, BrazilDepartamento de Ecologia/Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilAlthough null hypothesis testing (NHT) is the primary method for analyzing data in many natural sciences, it has been increasingly criticized. Recently, approaches based on information theory (IT) have become popular and were held by many to be superior because it enables researchers to properly assess the strength of the evidence that data provide for competing hypotheses. Many studies have compared IT and NHT in the context of model selection and stepwise regression, but a systematic comparison of the most basic uses of statistics by ecologists is still lacking. We used computer simulations to compare how both approaches perform in four basic test designs (t-test, ANOVA, correlation tests, and multiple linear regression). Performance was measured by the proportion of simulated samples for which each method provided the correct conclusion (power), the proportion of detected effects with a wrong sign (S-error), and the mean ratio of the estimated effect to the true effect (M-error). We also checked if the p-value from significance tests correlated to a measure of strength of evidence, the Akaike weight. In general both methods performed equally well. The concordance is explained by the monotonic relationship between p-values and evidence weights in simple designs, which agree with analytic results. Our results show that researchers can agree on the conclusions drawn from a data set even when they are using different statistical approaches. By focusing on the practical consequences of inferences, such a pragmatic view of statistics can promote insightful dialogue among researchers on how to find a common ground from different pieces of evidence. A less dogmatic view of statistical inference can also help to broaden the debate about the role of statistics in science to the entire path that leads from a research hypothesis to a statistical hypothesis.https://peerj.com/articles/12090.pdfAICLikelihoodM-errorModel-based inferenceNull hypothesis testingPower
spellingShingle Leonardo Braga Castilho
Paulo Inácio Prado
Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
PeerJ
AIC
Likelihood
M-error
Model-based inference
Null hypothesis testing
Power
title Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
title_full Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
title_fullStr Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
title_full_unstemmed Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
title_short Towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
title_sort towards a pragmatic use of statistics in ecology
topic AIC
Likelihood
M-error
Model-based inference
Null hypothesis testing
Power
url https://peerj.com/articles/12090.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT leonardobragacastilho towardsapragmaticuseofstatisticsinecology
AT pauloinacioprado towardsapragmaticuseofstatisticsinecology