Abstract
AbstractWhen many statistical hypotheses are evaluated simultaneously, statisticians often recommend adjusting (or “correcting”) standard hypothesis tests. In this article, I (1) distinguish two senses of adjustment, (2) investigate the prudential and epistemic goals that adjustment might achieve, and (3) identify conditions under which a researcher should not adjust for multiplicity in the two senses I identify. I tentatively conclude that the goals of scientists and the public may be misaligned with the decision criteria used to evaluate multiple-testing regimes.
Full Text
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call