• search hit 34 of 122
Back to Result List

Addressing researcher degrees of freedom through minP adjustment

  • When different researchers study the same research question using the same dataset they may obtain different and potentially even conflicting results. This is because there is often substantial flexibility in researchers’ analytical choices, an issue also referred to as “researcher degrees of freedom”. Combined with selective reporting of the smallest p-value or largest effect, researcher degrees of freedom may lead to an increased rate of false positive and overoptimistic results. In this paper, we address this issue by formalizing the multiplicity of analysis strategies as a multiple testing problem. As the test statistics of different analysis strategies are usually highly dependent, a naive approach such as the Bonferroni correction is inappropriate because it leads to an unacceptable loss of power. Instead, we propose using the “minP” adjustment method, which takes potential test dependencies into account and approximates the underlying null distribution of the minimal p-valueWhen different researchers study the same research question using the same dataset they may obtain different and potentially even conflicting results. This is because there is often substantial flexibility in researchers’ analytical choices, an issue also referred to as “researcher degrees of freedom”. Combined with selective reporting of the smallest p-value or largest effect, researcher degrees of freedom may lead to an increased rate of false positive and overoptimistic results. In this paper, we address this issue by formalizing the multiplicity of analysis strategies as a multiple testing problem. As the test statistics of different analysis strategies are usually highly dependent, a naive approach such as the Bonferroni correction is inappropriate because it leads to an unacceptable loss of power. Instead, we propose using the “minP” adjustment method, which takes potential test dependencies into account and approximates the underlying null distribution of the minimal p-value through a permutation-based procedure. This procedure is known to achieve more power than simpler approaches while ensuring a weak control of the family-wise error rate. We illustrate our approach for addressing researcher degrees of freedom by applying it to a study on the impact of perioperative paO2 on post-operative complications after neurosurgery. A total of 48 analysis strategies are considered and adjusted using the minP procedure. This approach allows to selectively report the result of the analysis strategy yielding the most convincing evidence, while controlling the type 1 error—and thus the risk of publishing false positive results that may not be replicable.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Statistics

Number of document requests

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Maximilian M. Mandl, Andrea S. Becker-Pennrich, Ludwig C. HinskeORCiDGND, Sabine Hoffmann, Anne-Laure Boulesteix
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1145424
Frontdoor URLhttps://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/114542
ISSN:1471-2288OPAC
Parent Title (English):BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2024
Publishing Institution:Universität Augsburg
Release Date:2024/07/31
Volume:24
Issue:1
First Page:152
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02279-2
Institutes:Medizinische Fakultät
Medizinische Fakultät / Universitätsklinikum
Medizinische Fakultät / Lehrstuhl für Datenmanagement und Clinical Decision Support
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Licence (German):CC-BY 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung (mit Print on Demand)