Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
An Introduction to Modern Statistical Methods in HCI Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. Fair Statistical Communication in HCI

verfasst von : Pierre Dragicevic

Erschienen in: Modern Statistical Methods for HCI

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Statistics are tools to help end users accomplish their task. In research, to be qualified as usable, statistical tools should help researchers advance scientific knowledge by supporting and promoting the effective communication of research findings. Yet areas such as human-computer interaction (HCI) have adopted tools — i.e., p-values and dichotomous testing procedures — that have proven to be poor at supporting these tasks. The abusive use of these procedures has been severely criticized in a range of disciplines for several decades, suggesting that tools should be blamed, not end users. This chapter explains in a non-technical manner why it would be beneficial for HCI to switch to an estimation approach, i.e., reporting informative charts with effect sizes and interval estimates, and offering nuanced interpretations of our results. Advice is offered on how to communicate our empirical results in a clear, accurate, and transparent way without using any tests or p-values.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Mixture Models: Latent Profile and Latent Class Analysis
Nächstes Kapitel Improving Statistical Practice in HCI
Fußnoten
1
The width of confidence intervals generally increases with the variability of observations and decreases (somehow slowly) with sample size (Cumming 2012). So either pill 1 has a much more consistent effect or the number of subjects was remarkably larger. It is not very important here.
 
2
The term effect size is often used in a narrower sense to refer to standardized effect sizes (Coe 2002, see also Chap. 5). Although sometimes useful, reporting standardized effect sizes is not always necessary nor is it always recommended (Baguley 2009; Wilkinson 1999, p. 599).
 
3
Briefly, statistical power is the probability of correctly detecting an effect whose magnitude has been postulated in advance. The more participants, the larger the effect size and the lower the variability, the higher the statistical power (see also Chap. 5).
 
4
Strictly speaking, Neyman–Pearson ’s procedure involved choosing between the null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis generally stating that the effect exists and takes some precise value. Accepting the null if the alternative hypothesis is true is a Type II error. Its frequentist probability is noted \(\beta \), and power is defined as \(1-\beta \). These notions are not important to the present discussion.
 
5
The sharp distinction between pills 2 and 3 is not a caricature. Due to Neyman–Pearson ’s heritage, even pointing out that a non-significant p-value is close to .05 is often considered a serious fault.
 
6
Since computing \(\beta \) (or the probability of a Type II error) requires assigning a precise value to the population mean, \(\beta \) is also very unlikely to correspond to an actual probability or error rate.
 
7
For elements of discussion concerning this particular dichotomy, see Stewart-Oaten (1995), Norman (2010), Velleman and Wilkinson (1993), Wierdsma (2013), Abelson (1995, Chap. 1) and Gigerenzer (2004, pp. 587–588).
 
8
The meaning of robust here differs from its use in robust statistics, where it refers to robustness to outliers and to departures from statistical assumptions.
 
9
There is considerable debate on how to best collect and analyze questionnaire data, and I have not gone through enough of the literature to provide definitive recommendations. Likert scales are easy to analyze if they are constructed adequately, i.e., by averaging responses from multiple question items (see Carifio and Perla 2007). If responses to individual items are of interest, it can be sufficient to report all responses visually (see Tip 22). Visual analogue scales seem to be a promising option to consider if inferences need to be made on individual items (Reips and Funke 2008). However, analyzing many items individually is not recommended (see Tips 1, 5 and 30).
 
10
Both types of inferences can be combined using hierarchical or multi-level models, and tools exist for computing hierarchical confidence intervals (see Chap. 11).
 
11
For more on the important concepts of sampling distribution and the central limit theorem, see, e.g., Cumming (2013, Chap. 3) and the applet at http://​tinyurl.​com/​sdsim.
 
12
Visual robustness is related to the concept of visual-data correspondence recently introduced in infovis (Kindlmann and Scheidegger 2014). The counterpart of robustness (i.e., a visualization’s ability to reveal differences in data) has been variously termed distinctness (Rensink 2014), power (Hofmann et al. 2012), and unambiguity (Kindlmann and Scheidegger 2014).
 
Literatur
Abelson R (1995) Statistics as principled argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Abelson RP (1997) A retrospective on the significance test ban of 1999. What if there were no significance tests. pp 117–141
APA (2010) The publication manual of the APA, 6th edn. Washington, DC
Baguley T (2009) Standardized or simple effect size: what should be reported? Br J Psychol 100(3):603–617CrossRef
Baguley T (2012) Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA. Behav Res Meth 44(1):158–175CrossRef
Bayarri MJ, Berger JO (2004) The interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Stat Sci 58–80
Beaudouin-Lafon M (2008) Interaction is the future of computing. In: McDonald DW, Erickson T (eds) HCI remixed, reflections on works that have influenced the HCI community. The MIT Press, pp 263–266
Bender R, Lange S (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing: when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 54(4):343–349CrossRef
Beyth-Marom R, Fidler F, Cumming G (2008) Statistical cognition: towards evidence-based practice in statistics and statistics education. Stat Educ Res J 7(2):20–39
Brewer MB (2000) Research design and issues of validity. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. pp 3–16
Brodeur A, Lé M, Sangnier M, Zylberberg Y (2012) Star wars: the empirics strike back. Paris school of economics working paper (2012–29)
Carifio J, Perla RJ (2007) Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. J Soc Sci 3(3):106
Chevalier F, Dragicevic P, Franconeri S (2014) The not-so-staggering effect of staggered animated transitions on visual tracking. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 20(12):2241–2250CrossRef
Coe R (2002) It’s the effect size, stupid. In: Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association annual conference, vol 12. p 14
Cohen J (1990) Things I have learned (so far). Am Psychol 45(12):1304CrossRef
Cohen J (1994) The Earth is round (p < .05). Am psychol 49(12):997
Colquhoun D (2014) An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. Roy Soc Open Sci 1(3):140, 216
Correll M, Gleicher M (2014) Error bars considered harmful: exploring alternate encodings for mean and error. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 20(12):2142–2151CrossRef
Cumming G (2008) Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(4):286–300MathSciNetCrossRef
Cumming G (2009b) Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat med 28(2):205–220MathSciNetCrossRef
Cumming G (2012) Understanding the new statistics : effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Multivariate applications series. Routledge Academic, London
Cumming G (2013) The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci
Cumming G, Finch S (2005) Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol 60(2):170CrossRef
Cumming G, Fidler F, Vaux DL (2007) Error bars in experimental biology. J Cell Biol 177(1):7–11CrossRef
Dawkins R (2011) The tyranny of the discontinuous mind. New Statesman 19:54–57
Dienes Z (2014) Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front Psychol 5
Dragicevic P (2012) My technique is 20% faster: problems with reports of speed improvements in HCI. Research report
Dragicevic P, Chevalier F, Huot S (2014) Running an HCI experiment in multiple parallel universes. CHI extended abstracts. ACM, New York
Drummond GB, Vowler SL (2011) Show the data, don’t conceal them. Adv Physiol Educ 35(2):130–132CrossRef
Duckworth WM, Stephenson WR (2003) Resampling methods: not just for statisticians anymore. In: 2003 joint statistical meetings
Ecklund A (2012) Beeswarm: the bee swarm plot, an alternative to stripchart. R package version 01
Fekete JD, Van Wijk JJ, Stasko JT, North C (2008) The value of information visualization. In: Information visualization. Springer, pp 1–18
Fidler F (2010) The american psychological association publication manual, 6th edn. Implications for statistics education. In: Data and context in statistics education: towards an evidence based society
Fidler F, Cumming G (2005) Teaching confidence intervals: problems and potential solutions. In: Proceedings of the 55th international statistics institute session
Fidler F, Loftus GR (2009) Why figures with error bars should replace p values. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/J Psychol 217(1):27–37CrossRef
Fisher R (1955) Statistical methods and scientific induction. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol): 69–78
Franz VH, Loftus GR (2012) Standard errors and confidence intervals in within-subjects designs: generalizing Loftus and Masson (1994) and avoiding the biases of alternative accounts. Psychon Bull Rev 19(3):395–404CrossRef
Frick RW (1998) Interpreting statistical testing: process and propensity, not population and random sampling. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 30(3):527–535MathSciNetCrossRef
Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ 292(6522):746–750CrossRef
Gelman A (2013a) Commentary: p-values and statistical practice. Epidemiology 24(1):69–72CrossRef
Gelman A, Loken E (2013) The garden of forking paths. Online article
Gelman A, Stern H (2006) The difference between significant and not significant is not itself statistically significant. Am Stat 60(4):328–331MathSciNetCrossRef
Gigerenzer G (2004) Mindless statistics. J Socio Econ 33(5):587–606CrossRef
Gigerenzer G, Kruger L, Beatty J, Porter T, Daston L, Swijtink Z (1990) The empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life, vol 12. Cambridge University Press
Giner-Sorolla R (2012) Science or art? how aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(6):562–571CrossRef
Gliner JA, Leech NL, Morgan GA (2002) Problems with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST): what do the textbooks say? J Exp Educ 71(1):83–92CrossRef
Goodman SN (1999) Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the p value fallacy. Ann Intern Med 130(12):995–1004CrossRef
Greenland S, Poole C (2013) Living with p values: resurrecting a Bayesian perspective on frequentist statistics. Epidemiology 24(1):62–68CrossRef
Hager W (2002) The examination of psychological hypotheses by planned contrasts referring to two-factor interactions in fixed-effects ANOVA. Method Psychol Res, Online 7:49–77MathSciNet
Haller H, Krauss S (2002) Misinterpretations of significance: a problem students share with their teachers. Methods Psychol Res 7(1):1–20
Hoekstra R, Finch S, Kiers HA, Johnson A (2006) Probability as certainty: dichotomous thinking and the misuse of p values. Psychon Bull Rev 13(6):1033–1037CrossRef
Hofmann H, Follett L, Majumder M, Cook D (2012) Graphical tests for power comparison of competing designs. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 18(12):2441–2448CrossRef
Hornbæk K, Sander SS, Bargas-Avila JA, Grue Simonsen J (2014) Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM, ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 3523–3532
Jansen Y (2014) Physical and tangible information visualization. PhD thesis, Université Paris Sud-Paris XI
Kaptein M, Robertson J (2012) Rethinking statistical analysis methods for CHI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1105–1114
Keene ON (1995) The log transformation is special. Stat Med 14(8):811–819CrossRef
Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2(3):196–217CrossRef
Kindlmann G, Scheidegger C (2014) An algebraic process for visualization design. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 20(12):2181–2190CrossRef
Kirby KN, Gerlanc D (2013) BootES: an R package for bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes. Behav Res Methods 45(4):905–927CrossRef
Kline RB (2004) What’s wrong with statistical tests–and where we go from here. Am Psychol Assoc
Lambdin C (2012) Significance tests as sorcery: science is empirical, significance tests are not. Theory Psychol 22(1):67–90CrossRef
Lazic SE (2010) The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis? BMC Neurosci 11(1):5CrossRef
Levine TR, Weber R, Hullett C, Park HS, Lindsey LLM (2008a) A critical assessment of null hypothesis significance testing in quantitative communication research. Hum Commun Res 34(2):171–187CrossRef
Levine TR, Weber R, Park HS, Hullett CR (2008b) A communication researchers’ guide to null hypothesis significance testing and alternatives. Hum Commun Res 34(2):188–209CrossRef
Loftus GR (1993) A picture is worth a thousand p values: on the irrelevance of hypothesis testing in the microcomputer age. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 25(2):250–256CrossRef
MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD (2002) On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods 7(1):19CrossRef
Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J Mark Res 45(6):633–644CrossRef
Meehl PE (1967) Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philos Sci: 103–115
Miller J (1991) Short report: reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: bias varies with sample size. Q J Exp Psychol 43(4):907–912CrossRef
Newcombe RG (1998a) Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med 17(8):873–890CrossRef
Newcombe RG (1998b) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17(8):857–872CrossRef
Newman GE, Scholl BJ (2012) Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: the within-the-bar bias. Psychon Bull Rev 19(4):601–607CrossRef
Norman DA (2002) The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books Inc, New York
Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the laws of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632CrossRef
Nuzzo R (2014) Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506(7487):150–152CrossRef
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716+
Osborne JW, Overbay A (2004) The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Pract Asses Res Eval 9(6):1–12
Perin C, Dragicevic P, Fekete JD (2014) Revisiting Bertin matrices: new interactions for crafting tabular visualizations. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 20(12):2082–2091CrossRef
Pollard P, Richardson J (1987) On the probability of making Type I errors. Psychol Bull 102(1):159CrossRef
Rawls RL (1998) Breaking up is hard to do. Chem Eng News 76(25):29–34CrossRef
Reips UD, Funke F (2008) Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in internet-based research: VAS generator. Behav Res Methods 40(3):699–704CrossRef
Rensink RA (2014) On the prospects for a science of visualization. In: Handbook of Human Centric Visualization. Springer, pp 147–175
Ricketts C, Berry J (1994) Teaching statistics through resampling. Teach Stat 16(2):41–44CrossRef
Rosenthal R (2009) Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s Classic Books. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Rosenthal R, Fode KL (1963) The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behav Sci 8(3):183–189CrossRef
Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R (1989) Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. Am Psychol 44(10):1276CrossRef
Rossi JS (1990) Statistical power of psychological research: what have we gained in 20 years? J Consult Clin Psychol 58(5):646CrossRef
Sauro J, Lewis JR (2010) Average task times in usability tests: what to report? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 2347–2350
Schmidt FL, Hunter J (1997) Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. What if there were no significance tests. pp 37–64
Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22(11):1359–1366CrossRef
Smith RA, Levine TR, Lachlan KA, Fediuk TA (2002) The high cost of complexity in experimental design and data analysis: type I and type II error rates in multiway ANOVA. Hum Commun Res 28(4):515–530CrossRef
Stewart-Oaten A (1995) Rules and judgments in statistics: three examples. Ecology: 2001–2009
Thompson B (1998) Statistical significance and effect size reporting: portrait of a possible future. Res Sch 5(2):33–38
Thompson B (1999) Statistical significance tests, effect size reporting and the vain pursuit of pseudo-objectivity. Theory Psychol 9(2):191–196CrossRef
Tryon WW (2001) Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: an integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychol Methods 6(4):371CrossRef
Tukey JW (1980) We need both exploratory and confirmatory. Am Stat 34(1):23–25
Ulrich R, Miller J (1994) Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. J Exp Psychol: Gen 123(1):34CrossRef
van Deemter K (2010) Not exactly: in praise of vagueness. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Velleman PF, Wilkinson L (1993) Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am Stat 47(1):65–72
Vicente KJ, Torenvliet GL (2000) The Earth is spherical (p < 0.05): alternative methods of statistical inference. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 1(3):248–271
Wickham H, Stryjewski L (2011) 40 years of boxplots. Am Stat
Wilcox RR (1998) How many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern statistical methods? Am Psychol 53(3):300CrossRef
Wilkinson L (1999) Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol 54(8):594CrossRef
Willett W, Jenny B, Isenberg T, Dragicevic P (2015) Lightweight relief shearing for enhanced terrain perception on interactive maps. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’15, pp 3563–3572
Wilson W (1962) A note on the inconsistency inherent in the necessity to perform multiple comparisons. Psychol Bull 59(4):296CrossRef
Wood M (2005) Bootstrapped confidence intervals as an approach to statistical inference. Organ Res Meth 8(4):454–470CrossRef
Zacks J, Tversky B (1999) Bars and lines: a study of graphic communication. Mem Cogn 27(6):1073–1079CrossRef
Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN (2008) The cult of statistical significance. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Metadaten
Titel
Fair Statistical Communication in HCI
verfasst von
Pierre Dragicevic
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Modern Statistical Methods for HCI

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26631-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-26633-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26633-6_13

Neuer Inhalt

    Bildnachweise