Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP

By D. Quintana, Donald R. Williams. BMC Psychiatry, 2018

357 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundDespite its popularity as an inferential framework, classical null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has several restrictions. Bayesian analysis can be used to complement NHST, however, this approach has been underutilized largely due to a dearth of accessible software options. JASP is a recently developed open-source statistical package that facilitates both Bayesian and NHST analysis using a graphical interface. This article provides an applied introduction to Bayesian inference with Bayes factors using JASP.MethodsWe use JASP to compare and contrast Bayesian alternatives for several common classical null hypothesis significance tests: correlations, frequency distributions, t-tests, ANCOVAs, and ANOVAs. These examples are also used to illustrate the strengths and limitations of both NHST and Bayesian hypothesis testing.ResultsA comparison of NHST and Bayesian inferential frameworks demonstrates that Bayes factors can complement p-values by providing additional information for hypothesis testing. Namely, Bayes factors can quantify relative evidence for both alternative and null hypotheses. Moreover, the magnitude of this evidence can be presented as an easy-to-interpret odds ratio.ConclusionsWhile Bayesian analysis is by no means a new method, this type of statistical inference has been largely inaccessible for most psychiatry researchers. JASP provides a straightforward means of performing reproducible Bayesian hypothesis tests using a graphical “point and click” environment that will be familiar to researchers conversant with other graphical statistical packages, such as SPSS.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11fb5da5b45b2f12de2945dce1c9478d367c79e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

  1. Mengsen Zhang
  2. Lauren Sidelinger
  3. F. Frohlich
  4. Stacey B. Daughters

In Psychiatry and Mental health

  1. Mengsen Zhang
  2. Lauren Sidelinger
  3. F. Frohlich
  4. Stacey B. Daughters

In Statistics and Probability

  1. Mengsen Zhang
  2. Lauren Sidelinger
  3. F. Frohlich
  4. Stacey B. Daughters

Citations in the corpus