Flexible Bayesian Multiple Comparison Adjustment Using Dirichlet Process and Beta-Binomial Model Priors

Researchers frequently wish to assess the equality or inequality of groups, but this comes with the challenge of adequately adjusting for multiple comparisons. Statistically, all possible configurations of equality and inequality constraints can be uniquely represented as partitions of the groups, where any number of groups are equal if they are in the same partition. In a Bayesian framework, one can adjust for multiple comparisons by constructing a suitable prior distribution over all possible partitions. Inspired by work on variable selection in regression, we propose a class of flexible beta-binomial priors for Bayesian multiple comparison adjustment. We compare this prior setup to the Dirichlet process prior suggested by Gopalan and Berry (1998) and multiple comparison adjustment methods that do not specify a prior over partitions directly. Our approach to multiple comparison adjustment not only allows researchers to assess all pairwise (in)equalities, but in fact all possible (in)equalities among all groups. As a consequence, the space of possible partitions grows quickly - for ten groups, there are already 115,975 possible partitions - and we set up a stochastic search algorithm to efficiently explore the space. Our method is implemented in the Julia package EqualitySampler, and we illustrate it on examples related to the comparison of means, variances, and proportions.Comment: 25 pages, 9 figures, and 1 tabl

A tutorial on Bayesian single-test reliability analysis with JASP

The current practice of reliability analysis is both uniform and troublesome: most reports consider only Cronbach’s α, and almost all reports focus exclusively on a point estimate, disregarding the impact of sampling error. In an attempt to improve the status quo we have implemented Bayesian estimation routines for five popular single-test reliability coefficients in the open-source statistical software program JASP. Using JASP, researchers can easily obtain Bayesian credible intervals to indicate a range of plausible values and thereby quantify the precision of the point estimate. In addition, researchers may use the posterior distribution of the reliability coefficients to address practically relevant questions such as “What is the probability that the reliability of my test is larger than a threshold value of .80?”. In this tutorial article, we outline how to conduct a Bayesian reliability analysis in JASP and correctly interpret the results. By making available a computationally complex procedure in an easy-to-use software package, we hope to motivate researchers to include uncertainty estimates whenever reporting the results of a single-test reliability analysis

Quantifying Support for the Null Hypothesis in Psychology: An Empirical Investigation

In the traditional statistical framework, nonsignificant results leave researchers in a state of suspended disbelief. In this study, we examined, empirically, the treatment and evidential impact of nonsignificant results. Our specific goals were twofold: to explore how psychologists interpret and communicate nonsignificant results and to assess how much these results constitute evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. First, we examined all nonsignificant findings mentioned in the abstracts of the 2015 volumes of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, and Psychological Science (N = 137). In 72% of these cases, nonsignificant results were misinterpreted, in that the authors inferred that the effect was absent. Second, a Bayes factor reanalysis revealed that fewer than 5% of the nonsignificant findings provided strong evidence (i.e., BF01 > 10) in favor of the null hypothesis over the alternative hypothesis. We recommend that researchers expand their statistical tool kit in order to correctly interpret nonsignificant results and to be able to evaluate the evidence for and against the null hypothesis

A Star Catalog for the Open Cluster NGC188

We present new BVRI broad-band photometry for the old open cluster NGC188 based upon analysis of 299 CCD images either obtained by us, donated by colleagues, or retrieved from public archives. We compare our results on a star-by-star basis with data from eleven previous photometric investigations of the cluster. We homogenize and merge the data from all the photometric studies, and also merge membership probabilities from four previous proper-motion studies of the cluster field. Fiducial cluster sequences in the BV (Johnson) RI (Cousins) photometric system of Landolt (1992, AJ, 104, 340) represent the principal result of this paper. These have been compared to reference samples defined by (a) Landolt's standard stars, (b) the old open clusters M67 and NGC6791, and (c) stars within 25 pc having modern photometry and precise Hipparcos parallaxes. In a companion paper we show that our derived cluster results agree well with the predictions of modern stellar-interior and -evolution theory, given reasonable estimates of the cluster chemical abundances and foreground reddening. The individual and combined datasets for NGC188 have been made available through our web site.Comment: Accepted for PAS

A tutorial on Bayesian multi-model linear regression with BAS and JASP

Linear regression analyses commonly involve two consecutive stages of statistical inquiry. In the first stage, a single ‘best’ model is defined by a specific selection of relevant predictors; in the second stage, the regression coefficients of the winning model are used for prediction and for inference concerning the importance of the predictors. However, such second-stage inference ignores the model uncertainty from the first stage, resulting in overconfident parameter estimates that generalize poorly. These drawbacks can be overcome by model averaging, a technique that retains all models for inference, weighting each model’s contribution by its posterior probability. Although conceptually straightforward, model averaging is rarely used in applied research, possibly due to the lack of easily accessible software. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, we provide a tutorial on linear regression using Bayesian model averaging in JASP, based on the BAS package in R. Firstly, we provide theoretical background on linear regression, Bayesian inference, and Bayesian model averaging. Secondly, we demonstrate the method on an example data set from the World Happiness Report. Lastly, we discuss limitations of model averaging and directions for dealing with violations of model assumptions

The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis

Despite the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference in empirical research, few practical guidelines provide detailed recommendations for how to apply Bayesian procedures and interpret the results. Here we offer specific guidelines for four different stages of Bayesian statistical reasoning in a research setting: planning the analysis, executing the analysis, interpreting the results, and reporting the results. The guidelines for each stage are illustrated with a running example. Although the guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general

Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer fiveoriginal research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams renderedstatistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.</div

DstarM: an R package for analyzing two choice reaction time data with the D*M method

Code, simulated datasets, and other supplementary materials for the manuscript can be found here