↓ Skip to main content

Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
315 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
309 Mendeley
Title
Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, March 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0595-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey N. Rouder

Abstract

Optional stopping refers to the practice of peeking at data and then, based on the results, deciding whether or not to continue an experiment. In the context of ordinary significance-testing analysis, optional stopping is discouraged, because it necessarily leads to increased type I error rates over nominal values. This article addresses whether optional stopping is problematic for Bayesian inference with Bayes factors. Statisticians who developed Bayesian methods thought not, but this wisdom has been challenged by recent simulation results of Yu, Sprenger, Thomas, and Dougherty (2013) and Sanborn and Hills (2013). In this article, I show through simulation that the interpretation of Bayesian quantities does not depend on the stopping rule. Researchers using Bayesian methods may employ optional stopping in their own research and may provide Bayesian analysis of secondary data regardless of the employed stopping rule. I emphasize here the proper interpretation of Bayesian quantities as measures of subjective belief on theoretical positions, the difference between frequentist and Bayesian interpretations, and the difficulty of using frequentist intuition to conceptualize the Bayesian approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 295 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 26%
Researcher 65 21%
Student > Master 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 46 15%
Unknown 37 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 144 47%
Neuroscience 18 6%
Computer Science 13 4%
Mathematics 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 3%
Other 54 17%
Unknown 61 20%