Person:
Alcalá Quintana, Rocío

Profile Picture
First Name
Rocío
Last Name
Alcalá Quintana
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/80039
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Psicología
Department
Psicobiología y Metodología en Ciencias del Comportamiento
Area
Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento
Identifiers
UCM identifierORCIDScopus Author IDWeb of Science ResearcherIDDialnet IDGoogle Scholar ID

Filters

2004 - 200912010 - 20161
Reset filters

Settings

Has files: true × Subject: 159.9.072 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The role of parametric assumptions in adaptive Bayesian estimation.
    (Psychological methods, 2004) Alcalá Quintana, Rocío; García Pérez, Miguel Ángel
    Variants of adaptive Bayesian procedures for estimating the 5% point on a psychometric function were studied by simulation. Bias and standard error were the criteria to evaluate performance. The results indicated a superiority of (a) uniform priors, (b) model likelihood functions that are odd symmetric about threshold and that have parameter values larger than their counterparts in the psychometric function, (c) stimulus placement at the prior mean, and (d) estimates defined as the posterior mean. Unbiasedness arises in only 10 trials, and 20 trials ensure constant standard errors. The standard error of the estimates equals 0.617 times the inverse of the square root of the number of trials. Other variants yielded bias and larger standard errors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The interpretation of scholars' interpretations of confidence intervals: criticism, replication, and extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014)
    (Frontiers in psychology, 2016) García Pérez, Miguel Angel; Alcalá Quintana, Rocío
    Hoekstra et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21:1157–1164) surveyed the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) by first-year students, master students, and researchers with six items expressing misinterpretations of CIs. They asked respondents to answer all items, computed the number of items endorsed, and concluded that misinterpretation of CIs is robust across groups. Their design may have produced this outcome artifactually for reasons that we describe. This paper discusses first the two interpretations of CIs and, hence, why misinterpretation cannot be inferred from endorsement of some of the items. Next, a re-analysis of Hoekstra et al.’s data reveals some puzzling differences between first-year and master students that demand further investigation. For that purpose, we designed a replication study with an extended questionnaire including two additional items that express correct interpretations of CIs (to compare endorsement of correct vs. nominally incorrect interpretations) and we asked master students to indicate which items they would have omitted had they had the option (to distinguish deliberate from uninformed endorsement caused by the forced-response format). Results showed that incognizant first-year students endorsed correct and nominally incorrect items identically, revealing that the two item types are not differentially attractive superficially; in contrast, master students were distinctively more prone to endorsing correct items when their uninformed responses were removed, although they admitted to nescience more often that might have been expected. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.