Analysis goals,error‐cost sensitivity,and analysis hacking: Essential considerations in hypothesis testing and multiple comparisons

The “replication crisis” has been attributed to perverse incentives that lead to selective reporting and misinterpretations of P‐values and confidence intervals. A crude fix offered for this problem is to lower testing cut‐offs (α levels), either directly or in the form of null‐biased multiple comparisons procedures such as naïve Bonferroni adjustments. Methodologists and statisticians have expressed positions that range from condemning all such procedures to demanding their application in almost all analyses. Navigating between these unjustifiable extremes requires defining analysis goals precisely enough to separate inappropriate from appropriate adjustments. To meet this need, I here review issues arising in single‐parameter inference (such as error costs and loss functions) that are often skipped in basic statistics, yet are crucial to understanding controversies in testing and multiple comparisons. I also review considerations that should be made when examining arguments for and against modifications of decision cut‐offs and adjustments for multiple comparisons. The goal is to provide researchers a better understanding of what is assumed by each side and to enable recognition of hidden assumptions. Basic issues of goal specification and error costs are illustrated with simple fixed cut‐off hypothesis testing scenarios. These illustrations show how adjustment choices are extremely sensitive to implicit decision costs, making it inevitable that different stakeholders will vehemently disagree about what is necessary or appropriate. Because decisions cannot be justified without explicit costs, resolution of inference controversies is impossible without recognising this sensitivity. Pre‐analysis statements of funding, scientific goals, and analysis plans can help counter demands for inappropriate adjustments, and can provide guidance as to what adjustments are advisable. Hierarchical (multilevel) regression methods (including Bayesian, semi‐Bayes, and empirical‐Bayes methods) provide preferable alternatives to conventional adjustments, insofar as they facilitate use of background information in the analysis model, and thus can provide better‐informed estimates on which to base inferences and decisions.