Maximal positive controls: A method for estimating the largest plausible effect size

The use of event-related potentials in the investigation of cognitive performance in people with Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic review

A biomarker of cognition in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) that is independent from the response of people with MS (PwMS) to test questions would provide a more holistic assessment of cognitive decline. One suggested method involves event-related potentials (ERPs). This systematic review tried to answer five questions about the use of ERPs in distinguishing PwMS from controls: which stimulus modality, which experimental paradigm, which electrodes, and which ERP components are most discriminatory, and whether amplitude or latency is a better measure. Our results show larger pooled effect sizes for visual stimuli than auditory stimuli, and larger pooled effect sizes for latency measurements than amplitude measurements. We observed great heterogeneity in methods and suggest that future research would benefit from more uniformity in methods and that results should be reported for the individual subtypes of PwMS. With more standardised methods, ERPs have the potential to be developed into a clinical tool in MS.

Are Small Effects the Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science? A Reply to Götz et al. (2022)

In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are "the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science." They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all "small" effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms.

Clarifying the causes of consistent and inconsistent findings in genetics

As research in genetics has advanced, some findings have been unexpected or shown to be inconsistent between studies or datasets. The reasons these inconsistencies arise are complex. Results from genetic studies can be affected by various factors including statistical power, linkage disequilibrium, quality control, confounding and selection bias, as well as real differences from interactions and effect modifiers, which may be informative about the mechanisms of traits and disease. Statistical artefacts can manifest as differences between results but they can also conceal underlying differences, which implies that their critical examination is important for understanding the underpinnings of traits. In this review, we examine these factors and outline how they can be identified and conceptualised with structural causal models. We explain the consequences they have on genetic estimates, such as genetic associations, polygenic scores, family‐ and genome‐wide heritability, and describe methods to address them to aid in the estimation of true effects of genetic variation. Clarifying these factors can help researchers anticipate when results are likely to diverge and aid researchers' understanding of causal relationships between genes and complex traits.