Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox

References

• Nalimov VV. In the labyrinths of language: a mathematician’s journey. Philadelphia, PA: iSi Press; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Weissgerber TL, Garovic VD, Milin-Lazovic JS, et al. Reinventing biostatistics education for basic scientists. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002430.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G. Statistical rituals: the replication delusion and how we got there. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1:198–218.
   Google Scholar
• de Groot AD. The meaning of “significance” for different types of research. [translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han L. J. van der Maas]. 1969. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014;148: 188–194.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol. [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2018 Aug 3];2:175–220. Available from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.uark.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=1998-02489-003&site=ehost-live&scope=site
   Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:1359–1366.
   Google Scholar
• Heininga VE, Oldehinkel AJ, Veenstra R, et al. I just ran a thousand analyses: benefits of multiple testing in understanding equivocal evidence on gene-environment interactions. PloS One. 2015;10:e0125383.
   Google Scholar
• Patel CJ, Burford B, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of vibration of effects due to model specification can demonstrate the instability of observational associations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1046–1058.
   Google Scholar
• Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven A, et al. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jun 19]. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708274114#ref-3
   Google Scholar
• Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference: part I. Biometrika. 1928;20A:175–240.
   Google Scholar
• Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference: part II. Biometrika. 1928;20A:263–294.
   Google Scholar
• Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser Contain Pap Math Phys Charact. 1933;231:289–337.
   Google Scholar
• Salsburg D. The lady tasting tea: how statistics revolutionized science in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher RA. The statistical method in psychical research. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. 1929;39:388–391.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Adolfi FG, Albers CJ, et al. Justify your alpha. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:168–171.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo DG. Statistical inference as severe testing: how to get beyond the statistics wars [Internet]. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 11]. DOI:10.1017/9781107286184
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson RS. Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000;5:241–301.
   Google Scholar
• Pernet C. Null hypothesis significance testing: a guide to commonly misunderstood concepts and recommendations for good practice. F1000Res. 2017;4:621.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: hypothesis tests and P values. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:81–86.
   Google Scholar
• Amrhein V, Korner-Nievergelt F, Roth T. The earth is flat (p > 0.05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3544.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05): rejoinder. Am Psychol. 1995;50:1103.
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke J. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Waltham, MA: Academic Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, et al. Bayesian data analysis. Third ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Mengersen KL, Drovandi CC, Robert CP, et al. Bayesian estimation of small effects in exercise and sports science. Plos One. 2016;11:e0147311.
   Google Scholar
• Royall R. Statistical evidence: a likelihood paradigm. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Aitkin M. Statistical modelling: the likelihood approach. J R Stat Soc Ser Stat. 1986;35:103–113.
   Google Scholar
• Dienes Z. Understanding psychology as a science: an introduction to scientific and statistical inference. London, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014;25:7–29.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire WJ. A perspectivist approach to theory construction. Personal Soc Psychol Rev Off J Soc Personal Soc Psychol Inc. 2004;8:173–182.
   Google Scholar
• Popper K. Realism and the aim of science: from the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos I. The methodology of scientific research programmes: volume 1: philosophical papers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Meehl PE. Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philos Sci. 1967;34:103–115.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Havenith G. Interactions in human performance: an individual and combined stressors approach. Temp Multidiscip Biomed J. 2016;3:514–517.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo DG, Spanos A. Severe testing as a basic concept in a Neyman–pearson philosophy of induction. Br J Philos Sci. 2006;57:323–357.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhaff PL. Cardiovascular fitness and thermoregulation during prolonged exercise in man. Br J Sports Med. 1989;23:109–114.
   Google Scholar
• Jay O, Bain AR, Deren TM, et al. Large differences in peak oxygen uptake do not independently alter changes in core temperature and sweating during exercise. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011;301:R832–841.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos I. Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Proc Aristot Soc. 1968;69:149–186.
   Google Scholar
• Jay O, Cramer MN. A new approach for comparing thermoregulatory responses of subjects with different body sizes. Temp Austin Tex. 2015;2:42–43.
   Google Scholar
• Cheuvront SN. Match maker: how to compare thermoregulatory responses in groups of different body mass and surface area. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md 1985. 2014;116:1121–1122.
   Google Scholar
• Abdi H. Coefficient of variation. Encycl Res Des. 2010;1:169–171.
   Google Scholar
• Cheuvront SN, Ely BR, Kenefick RW, et al. Biological variation and diagnostic accuracy of dehydration assessment markers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:565–573.
   Google Scholar
• Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW. CORP: improving the status quo for measuring whole body sweat losses. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md 1985. 2017;123:632–636.
   Google Scholar
• Stein RJ, Haddock CK, Poston WSC, et al. Precision in weighing: a comparison of scales found in physician offices, fitness centers, and weight loss centers. Public Health Rep Wash DC 1974. 2005;120:266–270.
   Google Scholar
• Travers GJS, Nichols DS, Farooq A, et al. Validation of an ingestible temperature data logging and telemetry system during exercise in the heat. Temp Austin Tex. 2016;3:208–219.
   Google Scholar
• Silberzahn R, Uhlmann EL, Martin DP, et al. Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1(3). 2515245917747646.
   Google Scholar
• Coll M-P. Meta-analysis of ERP investigations of pain empathy underlines methodological issues in ERP research. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2018;13(10):nsy072.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Loken E. The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. [Internet]. 2013. [Cited July 14, 2018]. Available from: https://stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sainani K. Interpreting “Null” results. Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;5:520–523.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell H, Gustafson P. Conditional equivalence testing: an alternative remedy for publication bias. PLoS ONE. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 14]; 13. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898747/
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017;8:355–362.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1:259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, McLatchie N, Isager PM, et al. Improving inferences about null effects with Bayes factors and equivalence tests. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Wellek S. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority. [Internet]. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010. Available from: https://www.crcpress.com/Testing-Statistical-Hypotheses-of-Equivalence-and-Noninferiority/Wellek/p/book/9781439808184
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. TOSTER: Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) equivalence testing. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 29]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TOSTER.
   Google Scholar
• Wellek S, Ziegler P. EQUIVNONINF: testing for equivalence and noninferiority [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 29]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EQUIVNONINF.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S, Poole C. Living with p values: resurrecting a Bayesian perspective on frequentist statistics. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2013;24:62–68.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani KL. The problem with “magnitude-based inference”. Med Sci Sports Exercise. [Internet]. 2018. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/29683920
   Google Scholar
• Mansournia MA, Altman DG. Some methodological issues in the design and analysis of cluster randomised trials. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(9):573–557. sbjsports-2018–099628.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Delacre M. Equivalence testing and the second generation P-value. PsyArXiv [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 29]; Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/7k6ay/.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: the assumption of normality. Adv Physiol Educ. 2017;41:449–453.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: the log transformation. Adv Physiol Educ. 2018;42:343–347.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: permutation methods. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012;36:181–187.
   Google Scholar
• Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7:1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Lund A, Lund M. Statistical Test Selector | Laerd Statistics Premium [Internet]. [cited 2018 Aug 29]. Available from: https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/sts/index.php.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics [Internet]. 8th ed. Cengage Learning: US; 2015 [cited 2018 Aug 30]. Available from: https://cengage.com.au/product/title/fundamentals-of-biostatistics/isbn/9781305268920
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. CORP: minimizing the chances of false positives and false negatives. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md 1985. 2017;122:91–95.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: confidence intervals. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:87–90.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: the bootstrap. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:286–292.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: the analysis of ratios and normalized data. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013;37:213–219.
   Google Scholar
• Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:365–376.
   Google Scholar
• Havenith G. Individualized model of human thermoregulation for the simulation of heat stress response. J Appl Physiol. 2001;90:1943–1954.
   Google Scholar
• Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–240.
   Google Scholar
• Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. NIHR J Lib. 2014;18.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.
   Google Scholar
• Prentice DA, Miller DT. When small effects are impressive. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:160–164.
   Google Scholar
• Albers C, Lakens D. When power analyses based on pilot data are biased: inaccurate effect size estimators and follow-up bias. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018;74:187–195.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson SF, Kelley K, Maxwell SE. Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: a method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychol Sci. 2017;28:1547–1562.
   Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–191.
   Google Scholar
• Westfall J. PANGEA: Power ANalysis for GEneral Anova designs [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Sep 18]. 2016. Available from: https://jakewestfall.shinyapps.io/pangea/.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Caldwell A. ANOVA simulation [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Oct 18]. 2018. Available from: http://shiny.ieis.tue.nl/anova_power/.
   Google Scholar
• Champely S, Ekstrom C, Dalgaard P, et al. Pwr: basic functions for power analysis. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 3]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr.
   Google Scholar
• HyLown Consulting LLC. Power and sample size | free online calculators. [Internet]. [cited 2018 Aug 6]. Available from: http://powerandsamplesize.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Kane SP. Sample size calculator. [Internet]. [cited 2018 Aug 6]. Available from: http://clincalc.com/stats/samplesize.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Blair G, Cooper J, Coppock A, et al. Declare design: declare and diagnose research designs [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 12]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DeclareDesign.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson SF, Kelley K. BUCSS: Bias and Uncertainty Corrected Sample Size [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 12]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BUCSS.
   Google Scholar
• PASS 16 power analysis and sample size software [Internet]. Kaysville, Utah, USA: NCSS, LLC.; 2018. Available from: https://www.ncss.com/software/pass/
   Google Scholar
• Kelley K, Maxwell SE. Sample size for multiple regression: obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant. Psychol Methods. 2003;8:305–321.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley K. Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:755–766.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Planning study size based on precision rather than power. Epidemiology. 2018;29:599.
   Google Scholar
• Swaen GG, Teggeler O, van Amelsvoort LG. False positive outcomes and design characteristics in occupational cancer epidemiology studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:948–954.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis M. the undoing project: a friendship that changed our minds. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Irvin VL, Garattini S. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS ONE. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Aug 12];10:e0132382. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526697/
   Google Scholar
• Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345:1502–1505.
   Google Scholar
• Armitage P, McPherson CK, Rowe BC. Repeated significance tests on accumulating data. J R Stat Soc. 1969;132:235–244.
   Google Scholar
• John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. 2012;23:524–532.
   Google Scholar
• Weber F, Hoang Do JP, Chung S, et al. Regulation of REM and Non-REM sleep by periaqueductal GABAergic neurons. Nat Commun. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 13];9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5783937/
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2014;44:701–710.
   Google Scholar
• Wald A. Sequential analysis. Oxford, England: John Wiley; 1947.
   Google Scholar
• Viele K, McGlothlin A, Broglio K. Interpretation of clinical trials that stopped early. Jama. 2016;315:1646–1647.
   Google Scholar
• Jennison C, Turnbull BW, Turnbull BW. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. [Internet]. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1999 [cited 2018 Sep 13]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781584888581
   Google Scholar
• Reboussin DM, DeMets DL, Kim KM, et al. Computations for group sequential boundaries using the Lan-DeMets spending function method. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:190–207.
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ. When (Not) to stop a clinical trial for benefit. Jama. 2005;294:2228–2230.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Evers ERK. Sailing from the seas of chaos into the corridor of stability: practical recommendations to increase the informational value of studies. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014;9:278–292.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell SE, Kelley K, Rausch JR. Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:537–563.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley K, Rausch JR. Sample size planning for the standardized mean difference: accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals. Psychol Methods. 2006;11:363–385.
   Google Scholar
• Borg DN, Osborne JO, Stewart IB, et al. The reproducibility of 10 and 20km time trial cycling performance in recreational cyclists, runners and team sport athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21:858–863.
   Google Scholar
• Schönbrodt FD, Wagenmakers E-J, Zehetleitner M, et al. Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: efficiently testing mean differences. Psychol Methods. 2017;22:322–339.
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh BK, Sen PK. Handbook of sequential analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley K. MBESS: the MBESS R Package. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 3]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBESS
   Google Scholar
• Pahl R. GroupSeq: A GUI-based program to compute probabilities regarding group sequential designs [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 13]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GroupSeq.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani KL. A checklist for analyzing data. Pm&R. 2018;10:963–965.
   Google Scholar
• Field A, Miles J, Field Z. Discovering statistics using R. Thousand Oaks, CL: SAGE Publications; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wilcox RR. Introduction to Robust estimation and hypothesis testing. 3rd ed. Waltham: Academic Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Good PI. Permutation, parametric, and bootstrap tests of hypotheses. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Grubbs FE. Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics. 1969;11:1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Tietjen GL, Moore RH. Some Grubbs-type statistics for the detection of several outliers. Technometrics. 1972;14:583–597.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner B. Percentage points for a generalized ESD many-outlier procedure. Technometrics. 1983;25:165–172.
   Google Scholar
• Wilcox RR. Fundamentals of modern statistical methods: substantially improving power and accuracy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsey ML, Gray GA, Wood SK, et al. Statistical considerations in reporting cardiovascular research. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2018;315:H303–H313.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani KL. Dealing with missing data. Pm&R. 2015;7:990–994.
   Google Scholar
• Marmolejo-Ramos F, Cousineau D, Benites L, et al. On the efficacy of procedures to normalize Ex-Gaussian distributions. Front Psychol. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Sep 28];5. Available from : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01548/full
   Google Scholar
• Mangiafico S. Rcompanion: functions to support extension education program evaluation [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 4]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion.
   Google Scholar
• Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1964;26:211–252.
   Google Scholar
• Rousselet GA, Wilcox RR. Reaction times and other skewed distributions: problems with the mean and the median. bioRxiv. 2018;383935.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby KN, Gerlanc D. BootES: an R package for bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45:905–927.
   Google Scholar
• Mair P, Wilcox R. WRS2: A collection of robust statistical methods [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 24]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=WRS2
   Google Scholar
• Garren ST. jmuOutlier: permutation tests for nonparametric statistics. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 24]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=jmuOutlier.
   Google Scholar
• Erceg-Hurn DM, Mirosevich VM. Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. Am Psychol. 2008;63:591–601.
   Google Scholar
• Vieth E. Fitting piecewise linear regression functions to biological responses. J Appl Physiol. 1989;67:390–396.
   Google Scholar
• Pedhazur E. Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction. 3rd ed. United States: Thomason Learning; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond VL, Davey S, Griggs K, et al. Prediction of core body temperature from multiple variables. Ann Occup Hyg. 2015;59:1168–1178.
   Google Scholar
• Vigotsky AD, Schoenfeld BJ, Than C, et al. Methods matter: the relationship between strength and hypertrophy depends on methods of measurement and analysis. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5071.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2000;279:R1–R8.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley K, Preacher KJ. On effect size. Psychol Methods. 2012;17:137–152.
   Google Scholar
• Gagge AP, Stolwijk JAJ, Hardy JD. Comfort and thermal sensations and associated physiological responses at various ambient temperatures. Environ Res. 1967;1:1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas JR, Salazar W, Landers DM. What is missing in p less than .05? Effect size. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1991;62:344–348.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas JR, Lochbaum MR, Landers DM, et al. Planning significant and meaningful research in exercise science: estimating sample size. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68:33–43.
   Google Scholar
• Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:918–920.
   Google Scholar
• Quintana DS. Statistical considerations for reporting and planning heart rate variability case-control studies. Psychophysiology. 2017;54:344–349.
   Google Scholar
• Schönbrodt FD, Perugini M. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? J Res Pers. 2013;47:609–612.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141:2–18.
   Google Scholar
• Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007;82:591–605.
   Google Scholar
• Canty A, Ripley B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 24]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=boot.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming G. ESCI (Exploratory Software for Confidence Intervals). [Internet]. Introd. New Stat. 2016 [cited 2018 Sep 24]. Available from: https://thenewstatistics.com/itns/esci/.
   Google Scholar
• Del Re A. Compute.es: compute effect sizes. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Sep 24]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=compute.es.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming G, Finch S. A primer on the understanding, use, and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61:532–574.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra R, Morey RD, Rouder JN, et al. Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014;21:1157–1164.
   Google Scholar
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Int Med. 1997;126:36–47.
   Google Scholar
• Abelson RP. A retrospective on the significance test ban of 1999 (if there were no significance tests, they would be invented). In: Lisa L. Harlow, editor. What there were no significance tests. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997. p. 472.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society. Adv Physiol Educ. 2004;28:85–87.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Assocation. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Weissgerber TL, Milic NM, Winham SJ, et al. Beyond bar and line graphs: time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLOS Biol. 2015;13:e1002128.
   Google Scholar
• Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CHJ, van Assen MALM, et al. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behav Res Methods. 2016;48:1205–1226.
   Google Scholar
• Hardwicke TE, Ioannidis JPA. Populating the Data Ark: an attempt to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from the most highly-cited psychology and psychiatry articles. Plos One. 2018;13:e0201856.
   Google Scholar
• Steegen S, Tuerlinckx F, Gelman A, et al. Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11:702–712.
   Google Scholar
• Tufte ER. The visual display of quantitative information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Grpahics Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Weissgerber TL, Garovic VD, Savic M, et al. From static to interactive: transforming data visualization to improve transparency. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002484.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:105–110.
   Google Scholar