AI Article Synopsis
- In 2019, Tendeiro and Kiers published an article on null hypothesis Bayesian testing and the Bayes factor in Psychological Methods.
- Recently, van Ravenzwaaij and Wagenmakers critiqued their work, prompting Tendeiro and Kiers to respond due to perceived issues in the critique.
- The authors aim to defend their original arguments and clarify misunderstandings about Bayesian testing and the Bayes factor among psychologists through this exchange.
Article Abstract
In 2019 we wrote an article (Tendeiro & Kiers, 2019) in Psychological Methods over null hypothesis Bayesian testing and its working horse, the Bayes factor. Recently, van Ravenzwaaij and Wagenmakers (2021) offered a response to our piece, also in this journal. Although we do welcome their contribution with thought-provoking remarks on our article, we ended up concluding that there were too many "issues" in van Ravenzwaaij and Wagenmakers (2021) that warrant a rebuttal. In this article we both defend the main premises of our original article and we put the contribution of van Ravenzwaaij and Wagenmakers (2021) under critical appraisal. Our hope is that this exchange between scholars decisively contributes toward a better understanding among psychologists of null hypothesis Bayesian testing in general and of the Bayes factor in particular. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000505 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!