ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Model-averaged Bayesian t tests.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanistic Characterization of Biologically Inspired Oral Neutrophil Isolation for AI-Assisted Oral Inflammatory Load Assessment.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Tutorial on Conducting and Interpreting a Bayesian Independent T-Test Using Open-Source Software.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Learning from outcomes shapes reliance on moral rules versus cost-benefit reasoning.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the most common statistical analyses in experimental psychology concerns the comparison of two means using the frequentist t test. However, frequentist t tests do not quantify evidence and require various assumption tests. Recently, popularized Bayesian t tests do quantify evidence, but these were developed for scenarios where the two populations are assumed to have the same variance. As an alternative to both methods, we outline a comprehensive t test framework based on Bayesian model averaging. This new t test framework simultaneously takes into account models that assume equal and unequal variances, and models that use t-likelihoods to improve robustness to outliers. The resulting inference is based on a weighted average across the entire model ensemble, with higher weights assigned to models that predicted the observed data well. This new t test framework provides an integrated approach to assumption checks and inference by applying a series of pertinent models to the data simultaneously rather than sequentially. The integrated Bayesian model-averaged t tests achieve robustness without having to commit to a single model following a series of assumption checks. To facilitate practical applications, we provide user-friendly implementations in JASP and via the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.