Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Physical Sciences and Mathematics
Significance Tests Harm Progress In Forecasting, J. Scott Armstrong
Significance Tests Harm Progress In Forecasting, J. Scott Armstrong
J. Scott Armstrong
Based on a summary of prior literature, I conclude that tests of statistical significance harm scientific progress. Efforts to find exceptions to this conclusion have, to date, turned up none. Even when done correctly, significance tests are dangerous. I show that summaries of scientific research do not require tests of statistical significance. I illustrate the dangers of significance tests by examining an application to the M3-Competition. Although the authors of that reanalysis conducted a proper series of statistical tests, they suggest that the original M3 was not justified in concluding that combined forecasts reduce errors and that the selection of …
Findings From Evidence-Based Forecasting: Methods For Reducing Forecast Error, J. Scott Armstrong
Findings From Evidence-Based Forecasting: Methods For Reducing Forecast Error, J. Scott Armstrong
J. Scott Armstrong
Empirical comparisons of reasonable approaches provide evidence on the best forecasting procedures to use under given conditions. Based on this evidence, I summarize the progress made over the past quarter century with respect to methods for reducing forecasting error. Seven well-established methods have been shown to improve accuracy: combining forecasts and Delphi help for all types of data; causal modeling, judgmental bootstrapping and structured judgment help with cross-sectional data; and causal models and trend-damping help with time-series data. Promising methods for cross-sectional data include damped causality, simulated interaction, structured analogies, and judgmental decomposition; for time-series data, they include segmentation, rule-based …