The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective
Open accessAbstract
In the practice of data analysis, there is a conceptual distinction between hypothesis testing, on the one hand, and estimation with quantified uncertainty on the other. Among frequentists in psychology, a shift of emphasis from hypothesis testing to estimation has been dubbed "the New Statistics" (Cumming 2014). A second conceptual distinction is between frequentist methods and Bayesian methods. Our main goal in this article is to explain how Bayesian methods achieve the goals of the New Statistics better than frequentist methods. The article reviews frequentist and Bayesian approaches to hypothesis testing and to estimation with confidence or credible intervals. The article also describes Bayesian approaches to meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, and power analysis.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A Bayesian approach was selected because it estimates the full probability distribution of treatment effects rather than relying on binary significance testing, allowing more informative interpretation of effect sizes and associated uncertainty [40, 41].”
From The Effect of Different Psychological Interventions on Athletes' Competitive Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · Cited by 12,558
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“But scientific journals (i.e., reviewers and editors) are reluctant to publish nonsignificant results (e.g., Rosenthal, 1979).”
Statistical Methods for Psychology.
Gudgeon, A. C., & Howell, D. C. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348956 · Cited by 8,277
The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 · Cited by 6,306 · cited 2×
“Among the most recent and prominent cautions against NHST is a statement from the American Statistical Association (ASA; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016), which featured six principles for properly interpreting p values.”
Applied Nonparametric Statistics
Wozniak, P. J., & Daniel, W. W. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268795 · Cited by 5,008
JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling
Plummer, M. (2003) · Cited by 4,720
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Allenby, G.M., Bakken, D.G., & Rossi, P.E. (2004). The hierarchical Bayesian revolution: How Bayesian methods have changed the face of marketing research. Marketing Research, 16, 20–25.
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press.
- Mayo, D.G. (2016). Don’t throw out the error control baby with the bad statistics bathwater: A commentary. The American Statistician. Retrieved from 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108#tabModule . · DOI
- Meehl, P.E. (1997). The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions, What if there Were no Significance Tests, 395–425, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (Eds.)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M., & Lüdecke, D. (2019) · Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.01541 · Cited by 1,483
Indices of Effect Existence and Significance in the Bayesian Framework
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Chen, S. H. A., & Lüdecke, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767 · Cited by 983
Brysbaert, M. (2019) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.72 · Cited by 996
McNulty, K. L., Elliott-Sale, K. J., Dolan, E., Swinton, P. A., Ansdell, P., Goodall, S., Thomas, K., & Hicks, K. M. (2020) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01319-3 · Cited by 812
Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?
Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009 · Cited by 805
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruschke, J. K., & Liddell, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kruschke, John K.
- ORCID
- Kruschke, John K.
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2017-02-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 178-206
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W3124625789
- Cited by
- 1,288
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 137 · 2025: 171 · 2024: 156 · 2023: 133 · 2022: 153 · 2021: 186 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 32
- FWCI
- 66.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Keywords
- new statistics, Bayesian analysis, hypothesis testing, confidence intervals, credible intervals, meta-analysis, power analysis, randomized controlled trials
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Uncertainty
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
