The debate about the Lancet study on CBT for psychosis is still going strong in the twitter-sphere. A lot of the criticism has focused on the statistics reported in the piece, with debates about standardised versus unstandardised effect sizes, lack of sensitivity analysis for confounds, choice of follow up point to report and so on. Prof James Coyne has even offered a $500 wager to the study authors to justify the use of the effect size they reported in the study. What’s interesting is that no-one (as far as I’m aware) is saying the numbers reported are wrong – rather, the debate is about which numbers are chosen at the expense of which others, which analyses were emphasised or excluded, and whether the chosen way of reporting certain findings is the most ‘fair’ way to do so.
People outside of science and academia might look at this and think…
View original post 654 more words
Leave a Reply