Cited by 3,688Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis

Open access
Rouder, Jeffrey N., Speckman, Paul L., Sun, Dongchu, Morey, Richard D., Iverson, Geoffrey·2009·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Progress in science often comes from discovering invariances in relationships among variables; these invariances often correspond to null hypotheses. As is commonly known, it is not possible to state evidence for the null hypothesis in conventional significance testing. Here we highlight a Bayes factor alternative to the conventional t test that will allow researchers to express preference for either the null hypothesis or the alternative. The Bayes factor has a natural and straightforward interpretation, is based on reasonable assumptions, and has better properties than other methods of inference that have been advocated in the psychological literature. To facilitate use of the Bayes factor, we provide an easy-to-use, Web-based program that performs the necessary calculations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/pbr.16.2.225

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There are alternative approaches to providing statistical support for a small or null effect, such as estimation (calculating effect sizes and CIs), specifying a region of practical equivalence, or calculating Bayes factors.

    “There are also alternative approaches to providing statistical support for a small or null effect, such as estimation (calculating effect sizes and CIs), specifying a region of practical equivalence (Kruschke, 2010), or calculating Bayes factors (Dienes, 2014; Rouder, Speckman, Sun, Morey, & Iverson, 2009).”

    From Equivalence Tests (2017) · cites this paper as Rouder, Speckman, Sun, Morey, & Iverson, 2009

  • The problem of non-significant p-values can be addressed by using either alternative frequentist or Bayesian methods that can provide evidence for the absence of an effect.

    “Fortunately, this problem can be addressed by using either alternative frequentist (Lakens 2017) or Bayesian (Rouder et al. 2009, Dienes 2014) methods that can provide evidence for the absence of an effect.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Rouder et al. 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Clarke, F. R. (1957). Constant-ratio rule for confusion matrices in speech communication. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 715-720.
  3. Debner, J. A., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Unconscious perception: Atten- tion, awareness, and control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 304-317.
  4. Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statisti- cal inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193-242.
  5. Egan, J. P. (1975). Signal detection theory and ROC-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  6. García-Donato, G., & Sun, D. (2007). Objective priors for hypothesis testing in one-way random effects models. Canadian Journal of Sta- tistics, 35, 303-320.
  7. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2004). Bayes- ian data analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
  8. Pierre- Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: A life in exact science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Goodman, S. N. (1999). Toward evidence-based medical statistics: I. The p value fallacy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130, 995-1004.
  10. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
  11. Hawking, S. (ED.) (2002). On the shoulders of giants: The great works of physics and astronomy. Philadelphia: Running Press.
  12. Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
  13. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
  14. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
  15. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773-795.
  16. Kass, R. E., & Wasserman, L. (1995). A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses with large samples. Journal of the American Statis- tical Association, 90, 928-934.
  17. Killeen, P. R. (2006). Beyond statistical inference: A decision theory for science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 549-562.
  18. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2005). Bayesian statistical infer- ence in psychology: Comment on Trafimow (2003). Psychological Review, 112, 662-668.
  19. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Pratte, M. S. (2007). Detecting chance: A solution to the null sensitivity problem in subliminal priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 597- 605.
  20. Rouder, J. N., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Comparing categorization mod- els. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 63-82.
  21. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
  22. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
  23. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive prob- lem of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804.
  24. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lee, M. D., Lodewyckx, T., & Iverson, G. (2008). Bayesian versus frequentist inference. In H. Hoijtink, I. Klug- kist, & P. A. Boelen (Eds.), Bayesian evaluation of informative hypo- theses in psychology (pp. 181-207). New York: Springer.
  25. Zellner, A., & Siow, A. (1980). Posterior odds ratios for selected re- gression hypotheses. In J. M. Bernardo, M. H. DeGroot, D. V. Lindley, & A. F. M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian statistics: Proceedings of the First International Meeting (pp. 585-603). Valencia: University of Valencia Press.
  26. Lehmann, E. L. (1993). The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: One theory or two? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1242-1249.
  27. Liang, F., Paulo, R., Molina, G., Clyde, M. A., & Berger, J. O. (2008). Mixtures of g priors for Bayesian variable selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 410-423.
  28. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
  29. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experi- mental Psychology, 57, 203-220.
  30. Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consult- ing & Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834.
  31. Myung, I.-J., & Pitt, M. A. (1997). Applying Occam's razor in model- ing cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 79-95.
  32. Rouder, J. N., & Lu, J. (2005). An introduction to Bayesian hierarchical models with an application in the theory of signal detection. Psycho- nomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 573-604.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Rouder, Jeffrey N.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2009-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
225-237
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W1978662219
Cited by
3,688
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 216 · 2025: 248 · 2024: 244 · 2023: 255 · 2022: 282 · 2021: 287 · 2020: 328 · 2019: 350 · 2018: 351 · 2017: 333 · 2016: 248 · 2015: 189 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 64
FWCI
41.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH071418)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
Bayes factor, null hypothesis testing, t-test, Bayesian inference, significance testing, web-based calculator
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Probability, Psychology, Experimental, Software, Likelihood Functions

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