Scalable Decision Rules for Environmental Impact Studies: Effect Size, Type I, and Type II Errors

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Mapstone
2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Gent ◽  
Paul D. Esker ◽  
Alissa B. Kriss

In null hypothesis testing, failure to reject a null hypothesis may have two potential interpretations. One interpretation is that the treatments being evaluated do not have a significant effect, and a correct conclusion was reached in the analysis. Alternatively, a treatment effect may have existed but the conclusion of the study was that there was none. This is termed a Type II error, which is most likely to occur when studies lack sufficient statistical power to detect a treatment effect. In basic terms, the power of a study is the ability to identify a true effect through a statistical test. The power of a statistical test is 1 – (the probability of Type II errors), and depends on the size of treatment effect (termed the effect size), variance, sample size, and significance criterion (the probability of a Type I error, α). Low statistical power is prevalent in scientific literature in general, including plant pathology. However, power is rarely reported, creating uncertainty in the interpretation of nonsignificant results and potentially underestimating small, yet biologically significant relationships. The appropriate level of power for a study depends on the impact of Type I versus Type II errors and no single level of power is acceptable for all purposes. Nonetheless, by convention 0.8 is often considered an acceptable threshold and studies with power less than 0.5 generally should not be conducted if the results are to be conclusive. The emphasis on power analysis should be in the planning stages of an experiment. Commonly employed strategies to increase power include increasing sample sizes, selecting a less stringent threshold probability for Type I errors, increasing the hypothesized or detectable effect size, including as few treatment groups as possible, reducing measurement variability, and including relevant covariates in analyses. Power analysis will lead to more efficient use of resources and more precisely structured hypotheses, and may even indicate some studies should not be undertaken. However, the conclusions of adequately powered studies are less prone to erroneous conclusions and inflated estimates of treatment effectiveness, especially when effect sizes are small.


2020 ◽  
pp. 37-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Shastitko ◽  
O. A. Markova

Digital transformation has led to changes in business models of traditional players in the existing markets. What is more, new entrants and new markets appeared, in particular platforms and multisided markets. The emergence and rapid development of platforms are caused primarily by the existence of so called indirect network externalities. Regarding to this, a question arises of whether the existing instruments of competition law enforcement and market analysis are still relevant when analyzing markets with digital platforms? This paper aims at discussing advantages and disadvantages of using various tools to define markets with platforms. In particular, we define the features of the SSNIP test when being applyed to markets with platforms. Furthermore, we analyze adjustment in tests for platform market definition in terms of possible type I and type II errors. All in all, it turns out that to reduce the likelihood of type I and type II errors while applying market definition technique to markets with platforms one should consider the type of platform analyzed: transaction platforms without pass-through and non-transaction matching platforms should be tackled as players in a multisided market, whereas non-transaction platforms should be analyzed as players in several interrelated markets. However, if the platform is allowed to adjust prices, there emerges additional challenge that the regulator and companies may manipulate the results of SSNIP test by applying different models of competition.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Rae Austin

ABSTRACT While not explicitly stated, many tax avoidance studies seek to investigate tax avoidance that is the result of firms' deliberate actions. However, measures of firms' tax avoidance can also be affected by factors outside the firms' control—tax surprises. This study examines potential complications caused by tax surprises when measuring tax avoidance by focusing on one specific type of surprise tax savings—the unanticipated tax benefit from employees' exercise of stock options. Because the cash effective tax rate (ETR) includes the benefits of this tax surprise, the cash ETR mismeasures firms' deliberate tax avoidance. The analyses conducted show this mismeasurement is material and can lead to both Type I and Type II errors in studies of deliberate tax avoidance. Suggestions to aid researchers in mitigating these concerns are also provided.


1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Rosman ◽  
Inshik Seol ◽  
Stanley F. Biggs

The effect of different task settings within an industry on auditor behavior is examined for the going-concern task. Using an interactive computer process-tracing method, experienced auditors from four Big 6 accounting firms examined cases based on real data that differed on two dimensions of task settings: stage of organizational development (start-up and mature) and financial health (bankrupt and nonbankrupt). Auditors made judgments about each entity's ability to continue as a going concern and, if they had substantial doubt about continued existence, they listed evidence they would seek as mitigating factors. There are seven principal results. First, information acquisition and, by inference, problem representations were sensitive to differences in task settings. Second, financial mitigating factors dominated nonfinancial mitigating factors in both start-up and mature settings. Third, auditors' behavior reflected configural processing. Fourth, categorizing information into financial and nonfinancial dimensions was critical to understanding how auditors' information acquisition and, by inference, problem representations differed across settings. Fifth, Type I errors (determining that a healthy company is a going-concern problem) differed from correct judgments in terms of information acquisition, although Type II errors (determining that a problem company is viable) did not. This may indicate that Type II errors are primarily due to deficiencies in other stages of processing, such as evaluation. Sixth, auditors who were more accurate tended to follow flexible strategies for financial information acquisition. Finally, accurate performance in the going-concern task was found to be related to acquiring (1) fewer information cues, (2) proportionately more liquidity information and (3) nonfinancial information earlier in the process.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-753
Author(s):  
Emperor Watcher ◽  
C. A. S.

Was the layout editor making a sly comment on the present state of American pediatrics by juxtaposing Mrs. Seymour's letter with the articles concerning Child Health Associates in the January issue (Pediatrics 51:1-16, 1973)? If the word "pediatrician" is substituted for "surgeon " in the 1754 letter, it has a surprisingly modern ring. One gets the impression from reading the four articles that CHAs have demonstrated that they are capable of doing good when compared with practicing pediatricians, but it is not clear whether evidence has been collected to deal with the question of whether the associates cause less harm (in testing hypotheses one is liable to two kinds of error, and the relationships between type I and type II errors is the basis for the Neyman-Pearson theory).


1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Berger ◽  
Michael D. Kock
Keyword(s):  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
The Real ◽  

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1849-1853

Nowadays people are interested to avail loans in banks for their needs, but providing loans to all people is not possible to banks, so they are using some measures to identify eligible customers. To measure the performance of categorical variables sensitivity and specificity are widely used in Medical and tangentially in econometrics, after using some measures also if banks provide the loans to the wrong customers whom might not able to repay the loans, and not providing to customers who can repay will lead to the type I errors and type II errors, to minimize these errors, this study explains one, how to know sensitivity is large or small and second to study the bench marks on forecasting the model by Fuzzy analysis based on fuzzy based weights and it is compared with the sensitivity analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document