Replication of "null results" -- Absence of evidence or evidence of absence?
Samuel Pawel; Rachel Heyard; Charlotte Micheloud; Leonhard Held · 2023 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a "replication success". Here we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and "replication success" can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately qu
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results*
Negative / Null Result ReportThe harmonic mean p -value for combining dependent tests
Negative / Null Result ReportGeneralizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
Negative / Null Result ReportNumerical predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1–6
Negative / Null Result ReportMethods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics
Negative / Null Result ReportShould multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv