ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2021
Reversing Bonferroni.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Article
- Contrasting Temporal Sequencing Effects of Self-Regulation, Mood, and Self-Efficacy Changes Within National Cancer Institute-Certified Obesity Intervention Processes Targeting Multiple Weight-Loss Behaviors in Community Settings.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The motivational drives of sickness: Acute changes in self-rated motivation during experimental endotoxemia assessed with the newly developed Motivation Scale of Sickness (MOSSick).Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025Article
- Biomechanical mechanisms behind the reduction of knee adduction moment in medial knee thrust gait.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comments on "Real-World Outcomes After Switch From Aflibercept to Faricimab in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema".Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Clinical data mining: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for translational applications.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Informative and uninformative prestimulus cues at encoding benefit familiarity and source memory.Memory (Hove, England) · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy for Children With Phelan-McDermid Syndrome: An Open-Label, Cross-Over, Preliminary Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Adapting Open Science and Pre-registration to Longitudinal Research.Infant and child developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is common for conclusions of empirical studies to depend on multiple significant outcomes. This practice may seem reasonable, but it has some unintended effects. In particular, the compound Type I error rate for multiple studies (the likelihood of concluding that an effect exists when it does not) can be much lower than that of the individual studies. This in itself is not a problem since a low Type I error rate is desirable. However, there is also an accompanying drop in power, meaning that the probability of finding support for a true effect is low. Currently, there is no standard statistical method for dealing with the hyper-conservative error rate and accompanying low power that results from investigations requiring multiple significant outcomes. Here, we propose a novel solution to this problem: We show that it is sometimes appropriate to reverse the logic of the classic Bonferroni correction and increase the significance criterion in order to maintain an intended compound Type I error rate across multiple tests. This reverse Bonferroni approach dramatically improves statistical power and encourages careful planning of statistical analyses prior to data collection. To avoid adding to the list of questionable research practices that seem to contaminate some psychological research, we suggest that reverse Bonferroni be restricted to situations where authors pre-register their analysis plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33464549What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.