Timeline for What are common statistical sins?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2012 at 13:33 | history | edited | John | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Nov 26, 2010 at 13:42 | comment | added | John | Just to be clear, the problem with those CI's is that they're purely used for inferential reasons with respect to differences among conditions and therefore are worse even than PLSD... in fact I prefer them. At least they're honest. | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 13:41 | comment | added | John | The only critique I know is Blouin & Riopelle (2005) but they don't get to the heart of the matter. I generally don't insist on not showing them but doing something correct as in the effect graphs of Masson & Loftus (2003, see figure 4, right panel... if they were removed from the left one you'd have done it right). | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 3:56 | comment | added | russellpierce | Is there a standard article that can be cited to dissuade reviewers from demanding this all-too-common practice? | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 20:28 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by user88 | ||
| Nov 15, 2010 at 19:26 | history | answered | John | CC BY-SA 2.5 |