Cited by 138Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

What is a Bayes factor?

Open access
Schmalz, Xenia, Biurrun Manresa, José, Zhang, Lei·2023·Psychological Methods

Abstract

The use of Bayes factors is becoming increasingly common in psychological sciences. Thus, it is important that researchers understand the logic behind the Bayes factor in order to correctly interpret it, and the strengths of weaknesses of the Bayesian approach. As education for psychological scientists focuses on frequentist statistics, resources are needed for researchers and students who want to learn more about this alternative approach. The aim of the current article is to provide such an overview to a psychological researcher. We cover the general logic behind Bayesian statistics, explain how the Bayes factor is calculated, how to set the priors in popular software packages to reflect the prior beliefs of the researcher, and finally provide a set of recommendations and caveats for interpreting Bayes factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000421

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Across the models, Bayes factors indicated either strong support of the null hypothesis or equivocal support, and none approached the threshold for even anecdotal evidence for iatrogenic effects (BF > 1).

    “Across the models, BFs indicated either strong support of the null hypothesis (eg, models testing screen completion at 1 month/week predicting positive screens at the next month/week) or equivocal support (eg, models predicting increases in positive screens across the study).34 Notably, none of the models approached the threshold for what would be considered even anecdotal evidence for iatrogenic”

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmalz, X., Biurrun Manresa, J., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
  • LMU Klinikum (DE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2023-06
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
705-718
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W3095440346
Cited by
138
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
13.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHM3450/1-1)
  • Stifterverband
  • Wikimedia
  • Volkswagenstiftung (H190 5909 5096 32135)
  • Vienna Science and Technology Fund (VRG13-007)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
Bayes factor, Bayesian analysis, prior specification, Bayesian hypothesis testing, frequentist statistics
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review