Purpose: We consider ‘‘magnitude-based inference’’ and its interpretation by examining in detail its use in the problem of comparing two means. Methods: We extract from the spreadsheets, which are provided to users of the analysis (http:// www.sportsci.org/), a precise description of how ‘‘magnitude-based inference’’ is implemented.We compare the implemented version of the method with general descriptions of it and interpret the method in familiar statistical terms. Results and Conclusions: We show that ‘‘magnitude-based inference’’ is not a progressive improvement on modern statistics. The additional probabilities introduced are not directly related to the confidence interval but, rather, are interpretable either as P values for two different nonstandard tests (for different null hypotheses) or as approximate Bayesian calculations, which also lead to a type of test. We also discuss sample size calculations associated with ‘‘magnitude-based inference’’ and show that the substantial reduction in sample sizes claimed for the method (30% of the sample size obtained from standard frequentist calculations) is not justifiable so the sample size calculations should not be used. Rather than using ‘‘magnitude-based inference,’’ a better solution is to be realistic about the limitations of the data and use either confidence intervals or a fully Bayesian analysis.Alan H. Welsh, Emma J. Knigh
