The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005)
Open accessAbstract
Presenting confidence intervals around means is a common method of expressing uncertainty in data. Loftus and Masson (1994) describe confidence intervals for means in within-subjects designs. These confidence intervals are based on the ANOVA mean squared error. Cousineau (2005) presents an alternative to the Loftus and Masson method, but his method produces confidence intervals that are smaller than those of Loftus and Masson. I show why this is the case and offer a simple correction that makes the expected size of Cousineau confidence intervals the same as that of Loftus and Masson confidence intervals. Confidence intervals (CIs) are a staple in the presentation of psychological data because they allow researchers to quickly gage the amount of uncertainty in data (Rouder & Morey, 2005). For within-subjects designs, there are several approaches to creating confidence intervals. For a given design it may not be clear which to choose. Consider a simple within-subjects design with two conditions, a pre-test and post-test. For this design, there are multiple methods of generating confidence intervals. I will discuss each in turn. Approaches to confidence intervals The standard way to build confidence intervals is to compute the standard error of the mean for each condition, and multiply it by the appropriate t-distribution quantile. In order to make this concrete, Table 1 lists hypothetical data for N = 10 participants. A paired t-test reveals a significant effect of condition (MSE = 5:19; t(9) = 3:65; p =:005;
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Do Better ImageNet Models Transfer Better?
Kornblith, S., Shlens, J., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2019.00277 · Cited by 1,325
When the Brain Takes a Break: A Model-Based Analysis of Mind Wandering
Mittner, M., Boekel, W., Tucker, A. M., Turner, B. M., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2062-14.2014 · Cited by 228
Shape Perception Simultaneously Up- and Downregulates Neural Activity in the Primary Visual Cortex
Kok, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2014) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.042 · Cited by 163
Top-down attention switches coupling between low-level and high-level areas of human visual cortex
Al-Aidroos, N., Said, C. P., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1202095109 · Cited by 180
Suppressed Sensory Response to Predictable Object Stimuli throughout the Ventral Visual Stream
Richter, D., Ekman, M., & de Lange, F. P. (2018) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3421-17.2018 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Morey, R. D.
- Venue
- Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology
- Published
- 2008-09-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 61-64
- ISSN
- 1913-4126 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2187089918
- Cited by
- 1,997
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
- The paper
- Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.