View in EDS

Heterogeneity in effect size estimates.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Heterogeneity in effect size estimates.
Authors:	Holzmeister, Felix¹ felix.holzmeister@uibk.ac.at, Johannesson, Magnus², Böhm, Robert^3,4, Dreber, Anna^1,2, Huber, Jürgen⁵, Kirchler, Michael⁵
Source:	Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 8/6/2024, Vol. 121 Issue 32, p1-10. 10p.
Subjects:	Path analysis (Statistics), Error rates, Heterogeneity, Experimental design, Empirical research
Abstract:	A typical empirical study involves choosing a sample, a research design, and an analysis path. Variation in such choices across studies leads to heterogeneity in results that introduce an additional layer of uncertainty, limiting the generalizability of published scientific findings. We provide a framework for studying heterogeneity in the social sciences and divide heterogeneity into population, design, and analytical heterogeneity. Our framework suggests that after accounting for heterogeneity, the probability that the tested hypothesis is true for the average population, design, and analysis path can be much lower than implied by nominal error rates of statistically significant individual studies. We estimate each type's heterogeneity from 70 multilab replication studies, 11 prospective meta-analyses of studies employing different experimental designs, and 5 multianalyst studies. In our data, population heterogeneity tends to be relatively small, whereas design and analytical heterogeneity are large. Our results should, however, be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of studies and the large uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimates. We discuss several ways to parse and account for heterogeneity in the context of different methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is the property of National Academy of Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	A typical empirical study involves choosing a sample, a research design, and an analysis path. Variation in such choices across studies leads to heterogeneity in results that introduce an additional layer of uncertainty, limiting the generalizability of published scientific findings. We provide a framework for studying heterogeneity in the social sciences and divide heterogeneity into population, design, and analytical heterogeneity. Our framework suggests that after accounting for heterogeneity, the probability that the tested hypothesis is true for the average population, design, and analysis path can be much lower than implied by nominal error rates of statistically significant individual studies. We estimate each type's heterogeneity from 70 multilab replication studies, 11 prospective meta-analyses of studies employing different experimental designs, and 5 multianalyst studies. In our data, population heterogeneity tends to be relatively small, whereas design and analytical heterogeneity are large. Our results should, however, be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of studies and the large uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimates. We discuss several ways to parse and account for heterogeneity in the context of different methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00278424
DOI:	10.1073/pnas.2403490121