Three Arguments for Absolute Outcome Measures

Philosophy of Science 84 (5):840-852 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Data from medical research are typically summarized with various types of outcome measures. We present three arguments in favor of absolute over relative outcome measures. The first argument is from cognitive bias: relative measures promote the reference class fallacy and the overestimation of treatment effectiveness. The second argument is decision-theoretic: absolute measures are superior to relative measures for making a decision between interventions. The third argument is causal: interpreted as measures of causal strength, absolute measures satisfy a set of desirable properties, but relative measures do not. Absolute outcome measures outperform relative measures on all counts.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-07-04
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Probabilistic Causality.Davis, Wayne A. & Eells, Ellery
Probabilistic Measures of Causal Strength.Fitelson, Branden & Hitchcock, Christopher

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
48 ( #32,518 of 40,636 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #20,675 of 40,636 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.