Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38627323›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Refining Bayesian hierarchical MPT modeling: Integrating prior knowledge and ordinal expectations.

Alexandra Sarafoglou, Beatrice G Kuhlmann, Frederik Aust, Julia M Haaf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Alexandra SarafoglouDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1001 NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. alexandra.sarafoglou@gmail.com.
Beatrice G KuhlmannDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Frederik AustDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1001 NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Julia M HaafDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1001 NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft KU 3329/1-1Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 406-17-568,VI.Veni.201G.019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multinomial processing tree (MPT) models are a broad class of statistical models used to test sophisticated psychological theories. The research questions derived from these theories often go beyond simple condition effects on parameters and involve ordinal expectations (e.g., the same-direction effect on the memory parameter is stronger in one experimental condition than another) or disordinal expectations (e.g., the effect reverses in one experimental condition). Here, we argue that by refining common modeling practices, Bayesian hierarchical models are well suited to estimate and test these expectations. Concretely, we show that the default priors proposed in the literature lead to nonsensical predictions for individuals and the population distribution, leading to problems not only in model comparison but also in parameter estimation. Rather than relying on these priors, we argue that MPT modelers should determine priors that are consistent with their theoretical knowledge. In addition, we demonstrate how Bayesian model comparison may be used to test ordinal and disordinal interactions by means of Bayes factors. We apply the techniques discussed to empirical data from Bell et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 456-472 (2015).

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremModels, StatisticalHumansModels, PsychologicalBayes factorsInequality constraintsMPT models

Identifiers

PMID38627323
PMCPMC11362240

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.