Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39701603›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie2025

Navigating the Bayes maze: The psychologist's guide to Bayesian statistics, a hands-on tutorial with R code.

Udi Alter, Miranda A Too, Robert A Cribbie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Improving statistical reporting in psychology.Communications psychology · 2025
    Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Udi AlterDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3133-839X
Miranda A TooDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-680X
Robert A CribbieDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-497X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian statistics has gained substantial popularity in the social sciences, particularly in psychology. Despite its growing prominence in the psychological literature, many researchers remain unacquainted with Bayesian methods and their advantages. This tutorial addresses the needs of curious applied psychology researchers and introduces Bayesian analysis as an accessible and powerful tool. We begin by comparing Bayesian and frequentist approaches, redefining fundamental terms from both perspectives with practical illustrations. Our exploration of Bayesian statistics includes Bayes's Theorem, likelihood, prior and posterior distributions, various prior types, and Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, supplemented by graphical aids for clarity. To bridge theory and practice, we employ a psychological research example with real, open data. We analyse the data using both frequentist and Bayesian approaches, providing R code and comprehensive supporting information, and emphasising best practices for interpretation and reporting. We discuss and demonstrate how to interpret parameter estimates and credible intervals, among other essential topics. Throughout, we maintain an accessible and user-friendly language, focusing on practical implications, intuitive examples, and actionable recommendations.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremPsychologyData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMarkov ChainsMonte Carlo MethodSoftwareBayesian inferenceBayesian statisticsbrmsRtutorial

Identifiers

PMID39701603
PMCPMC11658961

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.