How to measure effect sizes for rational decision-making

Philosophy of Science:1-17 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Absolute and relative outcome measures measure a treatment’s effect size, purporting to inform treatment choices. I argue that absolute measures are at least as good as, if not better than, relative ones for informing rational decisions across choice scenarios. Specifically, this dominance of absolute measures holds for choices between a treatment and a control group treatment from a trial and for ones between treatments tested in different trials. This distinction has hitherto been neglected, just like the role of absolute and baseline risks in rational decision-making that my analysis reveals. Recognizing both aspects advances the discussion on reporting outcome measures.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,674

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On Nudging’s Supposed Threat to Rational Decision-Making.Timothy Houk - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (4):403-422.
Three Arguments for Absolute Outcome Measures.Jan Sprenger & Jacob Stegenga - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (5):840-852.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-02-19

Downloads
61 (#268,803)

6 months
25 (#119,174)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ina Jäntgen
Cambridge University

Citations of this work

Patients, doctors and risk attitudes.Nicholas Makins - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (11):737-741.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references