Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39586998›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

On Bayes factors for hypothesis tests.

Karl Christoph Klauer, Constantin G Meyer-Grant, David Kellen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Karl Christoph KlauerDepartment of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany. christoph.klauer@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4004-035X
Constantin G Meyer-GrantDepartment of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 79085, Freiburg, Germany.
David KellenDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Funding

Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences 2145308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We develop alternative families of Bayes factors for use in hypothesis tests as alternatives to the popular default Bayes factors. The alternative Bayes factors are derived for the statistical analyses most commonly used in psychological research - one-sample and two-sample t tests, regression, and ANOVA analyses. They possess the same desirable theoretical and practical properties as the default Bayes factors and satisfy additional theoretical desiderata while mitigating against two features of the default priors that we consider implausible. They can be conveniently computed via an R package that we provide. Furthermore, hypothesis tests based on Bayes factors and those based on significance tests are juxtaposed. This discussion leads to the insight that default Bayes factors as well as the alternative Bayes factors are equivalent to test-statistic-based Bayes factors as proposed by Johnson. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 67, 689-701. (2005). We highlight test-statistic-based Bayes factors as a general approach to Bayes-factor computation that is applicable to many hypothesis-testing problems for which an effect-size measure has been proposed and for which test power can be computed.

Indexed as

PsychologyAnalysis of VarianceBayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansBayesian statisticsDefault Bayes factorsStatistical inference

Identifiers

PMID39586998
PMCPMC12092502

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.