Closed hadjipantelis closed 2 years ago
The exact value here depends on where the rounding is done, also on whether we use 1.96 or 2 as our statistical significance threshold. But it makes sense for the calculations to be internally consistent, so I'll change it to 9.5.
Thanks for reporting. The fix will be in PDF soon
Cool, I am glad I could help!
Great book!
In Sect. 4.4, in the paragraph the "Type M (magnitude) and type s (sign) errors", when the text reads "... and the expected exaggeration factor is 9.7." it is misleading as it should read "... and the expected exaggeration factor is 9.5.".
The function
retrodesign::type_m
as well as a manual calculation suggest that the expected exaggeration factor is a bit smaller than the one stated.