Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30105445›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2019

Replication Bayes factors from evidence updating.

Alexander Ly, Alexander Etz, Maarten Marsman, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Model-averaged Bayesian t tests.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. How can we make sound replication decisions?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Power priors for replication studies.Test (Madrid, Spain) · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexander LyPsychological Methods Department, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15906, 1001, NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.ly@uva.nl.
Alexander EtzDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Maarten MarsmanPsychological Methods Department, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15906, 1001, NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric-Jan WagenmakersPsychological Methods Department, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15906, 1001, NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe a general method that allows experimenters to quantify the evidence from the data of a direct replication attempt given data already acquired from an original study. These so-called replication Bayes factors are a reconceptualization of the ones introduced by Verhagen and Wagenmakers (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1457-1475 2014) for the common t test. This reconceptualization is computationally simpler and generalizes easily to most common experimental designs for which Bayes factors are available.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansResearch DesignEvidence synthesisHypothesis testingMeta-analysisReplication

Identifiers

PMID30105445
PMCPMC6877488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.