| Title |
A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael E. J. Masson |
| Abstract |
Null-hypothesis significance testing remains the standard inferential tool in cognitive science despite its serious disadvantages. Primary among these is the fact that the resulting probability value does not tell the researcher what he or she usually wants to know: How probable is a hypothesis, given the obtained data? Inspired by developments presented by Wagenmakers (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804, 2007), I provide a tutorial on a Bayesian model selection approach that requires only a simple transformation of sum-of-squares values generated by the standard analysis of variance. This approach generates a graded level of evidence regarding which model (e.g., effect absent [null hypothesis] vs. effect present [alternative hypothesis]) is more strongly supported by the data. This method also obviates admonitions never to speak of accepting the null hypothesis. An Excel worksheet for computing the Bayesian analysis is provided as supplemental material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 692 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | 3% |
| Germany | 9 | 1% |
| Canada | 9 | 1% |
| Italy | 5 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 2% |
| Unknown | 620 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 194 | 28% |
| Researcher | 106 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 102 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 44 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 6% |
| Other | 126 | 18% |
| Unknown | 76 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 353 | 51% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 39 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 3% |
| Other | 100 | 14% |
| Unknown | 113 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,655,375
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#307
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,970
of 194,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.