The 0.05 boundary within Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing (NHST) "has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move" (to quote Douglas Adams). Here, we move past meta-scientific arguments and ask an empirical question: What is the psychological standing of the 0.05 boundary for statistical significance? We…

Meta-analytic models for dependent effect sizes have grown increasingly sophisticated over the last few decades, which has created challenges for a priori power calculations. We introduce power approximations for tests of average effect sizes based upon several common approaches for handling dependent effect sizes. In a Monte Carlo simulation, we…

Context: A perennial problem in applied statistics is the inability to justify strong claims about cause-and-effect relationships without full knowledge of the mechanism determining selection into treatment. Few research designs other than the well-implemented random assignment study meet this requirement. Researchers have proposed partial…

The most common and well-known meta-regression models work under the assumption that there is only one effect size estimate per study and that the estimates are independent. However, meta-analytic reviews of social science research often include multiple effect size estimates per primary study, leading to dependence in the estimates. Some…

It is now widely accepted that the standard inferential toolkit used by the scientific research community--null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST)--is not fit for purpose. Yet despite the threat posed to the scientific enterprise, there is no agreement concerning alternative approaches for evidence assessment. This lack of consensus reflects…