When indices disagree: facing conceptual and practical challenges

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. The published version of this Preprint is available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.001. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

Comment #153 Carlos Alberto Arnillas @ 2024-03-22 09:41

If interested, the latest version of the pre-print is now published in TREE: Here is the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.02.001

Downloads

Download Preprint

Authors

Carlos Alberto Arnillas, Kelly Carscadden

Abstract

Hypothesis testing requires meaningful ways to quantify relevant biological phenomena and account for alternative mechanisms that could explain the same pattern. Researchers combine experiments, statistics, and indices to account for these confounding mechanisms. Key concepts in ecology and evolution, like niche breadth or fitness, can be represented by several indices, which often provide uncorrelated estimates. Is this because the indices use different types of noisy data or because the targeted phenomenon is complex and multidimensional? We discuss implications of these scenarios and propose five steps to aid researchers in identifying and combining indices, experiments, and statistics. Supported by efforts to build databases of hypotheses and indices and document assumptions, these steps help provide a formal strategy to reduce self-confirmatory bias.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/X27G78

Subjects

Life Sciences

Keywords

metrics, measurement theory, niche breadth, hypothesis testing, database of assumptions, database of theories, self-confirmatory bias

Dates

Published: 2023-07-16 08:38

Last Updated: 2023-07-16 12:38

License

CC-By Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Language:
English

Conflict of interest statement:
None

Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable