Timeline for meta-analysis of p values
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/
|
|
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:37 | vote | accept | Anni | ||
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:35 | comment | added | Christoph Hanck | Essentially, you should do a right-tailed test if only large positive values of the test statistic provide evidence against the null. | |
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:34 | comment | added | Christoph Hanck | For the first question, yes. For the second claim, yes in the sense that if your observed test statistic is, say, in the right tail of the null distribution, it needs to be further out there if you conduct a two-sided test than if you conducted a right-tailed test. (If your test statistic has is standard normal under the null, a test statistic larger than 1.645 would suffice in the right-tailed case, where it would need to exceed 1.96 in the two-sided case, both at the 5% level.) | |
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | Anni | So, it means that I could also use two-sided p-values for Fisher or Stouffer, doesn't it? The only thing is that, if I combine two-sided p-values I am more strict regarding the hypothesis. | |
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:31 | history | edited | Christoph Hanck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 500 characters in body
|
Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18 | history | answered | Christoph Hanck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |