Regarding p rep: comment prompted by Iverson, Wagenmakers, and Lee (2010); Lecoutre, Lecoutre, and Poitevineau (2010); and Maraun and Gabriel (2010).
The sense that replicability is an important aspect of empirical science led Killeen (2005a) to define prep, the probability that a replication will result in an outcome in the same direction as that found in a current experiment. Since then, several authors have praised and criticized prep, culminating in the 3 articles in the current issue of Psychological Methods. In this article, Killeen's prep is reviewed, and the contributions of the current articles are summarized and discussed. An examination of the role of a measure of theoretical support such as prep in the acquisition of knowledge leads me to concur with Senn (2002) that prep is of little epistemological value.
Serlin
Ronald C
RC
Department of Educational Psychology, 1025 West Johnson Street, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA. rcserlin@wisc.edu
D016001:Confidence Intervals; D006801:Humans; D011336:Probability; D011584:Psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results