Confidence intervals and replication: Where will the next mean fall?
- 1 January 2006
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Psychological Methods
- Vol. 11 (3), 217-227
- https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.3.217
Abstract
Confidence intervals (CIs) give information about replication, but many researchers have misconceptions about this information. One problem is that the percentage of future replication means captured by a particular CI varies markedly, depending on where in relation to the population mean that CI falls. The authors investigated the distribution of this percentage for varsigma known and unknown, for various sample sizes, and for robust CIs. The distribution has strong negative skew: Most 95% CIs will capture around 90% or more of replication means, but some will capture a much lower proportion. On average, a 95% CI will include just 83.4% of future replication means. The authors present figures designed to assist understanding of what CIs say about replication, and they also extend the discussion to explain how p values give information about replication.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Replication Probabilities Depend on Prior Probability DistributionsPsychological Science, 2005
- Probability of Replication RevisitedPsychological Science, 2005
- Replicability, Confidence, and PriorsPsychological Science, 2005
- Understanding the Average Probability of ReplicationPsychological Science, 2005
- An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance TestsPsychological Science, 2005
- Inference by Eye: Confidence Intervals and How to Read Pictures of Data.American Psychologist, 2005
- A Primer on the Understanding, Use, and Calculation of Confidence Intervals That Are Based on Central and Noncentral DistributionsEducational and Psychological Measurement, 2001
- Statistical Significance and ReplicabilityTheory & Psychology, 1998
- On the communication of information by displays of standard errors and confidence intervalsPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1997
- Analyzing data: Sanctification or detective work?American Psychologist, 1969