Cited by 754Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing

Open access
Masson, Michael E. J.·2011·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Null-hypothesis significance testing remains the standard inferential tool in cognitive science despite its serious disadvantages. Primary among these is the fact that the resulting probability value does not tell the researcher what he or she usually wants to know: How probable is a hypothesis, given the obtained data? Inspired by developments presented by Wagenmakers (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804, 2007), I provide a tutorial on a Bayesian model selection approach that requires only a simple transformation of sum-of-squares values generated by the standard analysis of variance. This approach generates a graded level of evidence regarding which model (e.g., effect absent [null hypothesis] vs. effect present [alternative hypothesis]) is more strongly supported by the data. This method also obviates admonitions never to speak of accepting the null hypothesis. An Excel worksheet for computing the Bayesian analysis is provided as supplemental material.

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/s13428-010-0049-5

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Masson, M. E. J.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Masson, Michael E. J.
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2011-02-08
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
679-690
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W2151069696
Cited by
752
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 22
FWCI
34.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
Bayesian model selection, null hypothesis significance testing, Bayes factor, analysis of variance, sums of squares, evidence rating, null hypothesis, effect size
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Probability, Research Design, Models, Statistical

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