2019
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-01189-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis using an informed prior

Abstract: Well-designed experiments are likely to yield compelling evidence with efficient sample sizes. Bayes Factor Design Analysis (BFDA) is a recently developed methodology that allows researchers to balance the informativeness and efficiency of their experiment (Schönbrodt & Wagenmakers, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 25 (1), 128–142 2018 ). With BFDA, researchers can control the rate of misleading evidence but, in addition, they can plan for a t… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
202
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

5
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(203 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
202
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thirdly, Bayes Factors for the critical contrast (0.1 by-participants and 0.14 by-items) showed moderate to strong evidence in support of the null hypothesis, where less than 0.3 is considered moderate and less than 0.1 as strong evidence (Stefan et al, 2019). While this level of evidence might not be considered definitive, due to the slow rate of evidence accumulation for a true null as sample size increases (and particularly for default priors; Stefan, Gronau, Schönbrodt, & Wagenmakers, 2019) much larger sample sizes are necessary for stronger evidence (Brysbaert, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Thirdly, Bayes Factors for the critical contrast (0.1 by-participants and 0.14 by-items) showed moderate to strong evidence in support of the null hypothesis, where less than 0.3 is considered moderate and less than 0.1 as strong evidence (Stefan et al, 2019). While this level of evidence might not be considered definitive, due to the slow rate of evidence accumulation for a true null as sample size increases (and particularly for default priors; Stefan, Gronau, Schönbrodt, & Wagenmakers, 2019) much larger sample sizes are necessary for stronger evidence (Brysbaert, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The third and main drawback of this procedure is that the construction of the calibration set costs data. For example, a study initially thought to have sufficient power (or sufficiently high probability of finding compelling evidence, see Stefan et al 2019), may become underpowered in light of a split-half cross-validation technique in which 50% of the data have to be sacrificed to construct the calibration set.…”
Section: Methods 1: Masking a Subsetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third and main drawback of this procedure is that the construction of the calibration set costs data. For example, a study initially thought to have sufficient power (or sufficiently high probability of finding compelling evidence, see Stefan, Gronau, Schönbrodt, & Wagenmakers, 2019), may become underpowered in light of a split-half cross-validation technique in which 50% of the data have to be sacrificed to construct the calibration set.…”
Section: Methods Of Analysis Blindingmentioning
confidence: 99%