↓ Skip to main content

Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
318 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
311 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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 311 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 297 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 48 15%
Unknown 37 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 144 46%
Neuroscience 18 6%
Computer Science 13 4%
Mathematics 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 3%
Other 56 18%
Unknown 61 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 20 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,001,571
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#6
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,316
of 238,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 238,382 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.