BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Harlan Campbell

Harlan Campbell contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

re:Linde et al. (2021): The Bayes factor, HDI-ROPE and frequentist equivalence tests can all be reverse engineered -- almost exactly -- from one another

Following an extensive simulation study comparing the operating characteristics of three different procedures used for establishing equivalence (the frequentist "TOST", the Bayesian "HDI-ROPE", and the Bayes factor interval null procedure), Linde et al. (2021) conclude with the recommendation that "researchers rely more on the Bayes factor interval null approach for quantifying evidence for equivalence." We redo the simulation study of Linde et al. (2021) in its entirety but with the different procedures calibrated to have the same predetermined maximum type 1 error rate. Our results suggest that, when calibrated in this way, the Bayes Factor, HDI-ROPE, and frequentist equivalence tests all have similar -- almost exactly -- type 2 error rates. In general any advocating for frequentist testing as better or worse than Bayesian testing in terms of empirical findings seems dubious at best. If one decides on which underlying principle to subscribe to in tackling a given problem, then the method follows naturally. Bearing in mind that each procedure can be reverse-engineered from the others (at least approximately), trying to use empirical performance to argue for one approach over another seems like tilting at windmills.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

What to make of non-inferiority and equivalence testing with a post-specified margin?

In order to determine whether or not an effect is absent based on a statistical test, the recommended frequentist tool is the equivalence test. Typically, it is expected that an appropriate equivalence margin has been specified before any data are observed. Unfortunately, this can be a difficult task. If the margin is too small, then the test's power will be substantially reduced. If the margin is too large, any claims of equivalence will be meaningless. Moreover, it remains unclear how defining the margin afterwards will bias one's results. In this short article, we consider a series of hypothetical scenarios in which the margin is defined post-hoc or is otherwise considered controversial. We also review a number of relevant, potentially problematic actual studies from clinical trials research, with the aim of motivating a critical discussion as to what is acceptable and desirable in the reporting and interpretation of equivalence tests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A non-inferiority test for R-squared with random regressors

Determining the lack of association between an outcome variable and a number of different explanatory variables is frequently necessary in order to disregard a proposed model. This paper proposes a non-inferiority test for the coefficient of determination (or squared multiple correlation coefficient), R-squared, in a linear regression analysis with random predictors. The test is derived from inverting a one-sided confidence interval based on a scaled central F distribution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Can we disregard the whole model? Omnibus non-inferiority testing for $R^{2}$ in multivariable linear regression and $\hatη^{2}$ in ANOVA

Determining a lack of association between an outcome variable and a number of different explanatory variables is frequently necessary in order to disregard a proposed model (i.e., to confirm the lack of an association between an outcome and predictors). Despite this, the literature rarely offers information about, or technical recommendations concerning, the appropriate statistical methodology to be used to accomplish this task. This paper introduces non-inferiority tests for ANOVA and linear regression analyses, that correspond to the standard widely used $F$-test for $\hatη^2$ and $R^{2}$, respectively. A simulation study is conducted to examine the type I error rates and statistical power of the tests, and a comparison is made with an alternative Bayesian testing approach. The results indicate that the proposed non-inferiority test is a potentially useful tool for 'testing the null.'

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The consequences of checking for zero-inflation and overdispersion in the analysis of count data

Count data are ubiquitous in ecology and the Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) is commonly used to model the association between counts and explanatory variables of interest. When fitting this model to the data, one typically proceeds by first confirming that the data is not overdispersed and that there is no excess of zeros. If the data appear to be overdispersed or if there is any zero-inflation, key assumptions of the Poison GLM may be violated and researchers will then typically consider alternatives to the Poison GLM. An important question is whether the potential model selection bias introduced by this data-driven multi-stage procedure merits concern. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale simulation study to investigate the potential consequences of model selection bias that can arise in the simple scenario of analyzing a sample of potentially overdispersed, potentially zero-heavy, count data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access