This sounds like it could be interesting, though I’d also consider if some of the points are fundamentally to do with RCTs. E.g., “80% statistical power meaning 20% chance of missing real effects”—nothing inherently says an RCT should only be powered at 80% or that the approach should even be one of null hypothesis significance testing.
Good point. Good to clarify that the 80% power standard comes from academic norms, not an inherent RCT requirement. NGOs should chose their statistical thresholds based on their specific needs, budget, and risk tolerance.
This sounds like it could be interesting, though I’d also consider if some of the points are fundamentally to do with RCTs. E.g., “80% statistical power meaning 20% chance of missing real effects”—nothing inherently says an RCT should only be powered at 80% or that the approach should even be one of null hypothesis significance testing.
Good point. Good to clarify that the 80% power standard comes from academic norms, not an inherent RCT requirement. NGOs should chose their statistical thresholds based on their specific needs, budget, and risk tolerance.