55
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Equivalence Tests : A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Scientists should be able to provide support for the absence of a meaningful effect. Currently, researchers often incorrectly conclude an effect is absent based a nonsignificant result. A widely recommended approach within a frequentist framework is to test for equivalence. In equivalence tests, such as the two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure discussed in this article, an upper and lower equivalence bound is specified based on the smallest effect size of interest. The TOST procedure can be used to statistically reject the presence of effects large enough to be considered worthwhile. This practical primer with accompanying spreadsheet and R package enables psychologists to easily perform equivalence tests (and power analyses) by setting equivalence bounds based on standardized effect sizes and provides recommendations to prespecify equivalence bounds. Extending your statistical tool kit with equivalence tests is an easy way to improve your statistical and theoretical inferences.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.

          The statistical test of hypothesis of no difference between the average bioavailabilities of two drug formulations, usually supplemented by an assessment of what the power of the statistical test would have been if the true averages had been inequivalent, continues to be used in the statistical analysis of bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. In the present article, this Power Approach (which in practice usually consists of testing the hypothesis of no difference at level 0.05 and requiring an estimated power of 0.80) is compared to another statistical approach, the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure, which leads to the same conclusion as the approach proposed by Westlake based on the usual (shortest) 1-2 alpha confidence interval for the true average difference. It is found that for the specific choice of alpha = 0.05 as the nominal level of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure has uniformly superior properties to the power approach in most cases. The only cases where the power approach has superior properties when the true averages are equivalent correspond to cases where the chance of concluding equivalence with the power approach when the true averages are not equivalent exceeds 0.05. With appropriate choice of the nominal level of significance of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure always has uniformly superior properties to the power approach. The two one-sided tests procedure is compared to the procedure proposed by Hauck and Anderson.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The generalisation of student's problems when several different population variances are involved.

            B L WELCH (1947)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Soc Psychol Personal Sci
                Soc Psychol Personal Sci
                SPP
                spspp
                Social Psychological and Personality Science
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1948-5506
                1948-5514
                05 May 2017
                May 2017
                : 8
                : 4 , Special Issue (Part I of II): New Developments in Research Methods for Social/Personality Psychology
                : 355-362
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Human Technology Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*]Daniël Lakens, Human Technology Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, IPO 1.24, PO Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Email: d.lakens@ 123456tue.nl
                Article
                10.1177_1948550617697177
                10.1177/1948550617697177
                5502906
                28736600
                764d3675-4ad0-4e70-9c84-646ecad71f81
                © The Author(s) 2017

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Special Issue Articles

                research methods,equivalence testing,null hypothesis significance testing,power analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article