The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“JZS Bayes factor ANOVAs with default prior scales [49–52] revealed support for the null hypothesis regarding main and interaction effects for all three cognitive outcomes.”
From Dual N-back working memory training in healthy adults: A randomized comparison to processing speed training. (2016) · cites this paper as [50]
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
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
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Bayesian model selection in social research
Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/271063 · Cited by 6,823
ANew Look at the Statistical Model Identification
AKAlKE, H. (2011) · Cited by 4,177
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.225 · Cited by 3,688
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications
Wagenmakers, E., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., Selker, R., Gronau, Q. F., Šmíra, M., Epskamp, S., et al. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3 · Cited by 1,767
(2013) · Cited by 1,351
What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014) · The Journal of Problem Solving · doi:10.7771/1932-6246.1167 · Cited by 1,101
Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0039400 · Cited by 1,102
Steenbergen, L., Sellaro, R., van Hemert, S., Bosch, J. A., & Colzato, L. S. (2015) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2015.04.003 · Cited by 671
“To calculate Bayesian probabilities we used the method proposed by Wagenmakers (2007) and Masson (2011).”
Method
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
