Replication is not coincidence: reply to Iverson, Lee, and Wagenmakers (2009).

Iverson, Lee, and Wagenmakers (2009) claimed that Killeen's (2005) statistic prep overestimates the "true probability of replication." We show that Iverson et al. confused the probability of replication of an observed direction of effect with a probability of coincidence--the probability that two future experiments will return the same sign. The theoretical analysis is punctuated with a simulation of the predictions of prep for a realistic random effects world of representative parameters, when those are unknown a priori. We emphasize throughout that prep is intended to evaluate the probability of a replication outcome after observations, not to estimate a parameter. Hence, the usual conventional criteria (unbiasedness, minimum variance estimator) for judging estimators are not appropriate for probabilities such as p and prep.