贝叶斯方差分析中贝叶斯因子估计值的一致性。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1037/met0000703
Roland Pfister
{"title":"贝叶斯方差分析中贝叶斯因子估计值的一致性。","authors":"Roland Pfister","doi":"10.1037/met0000703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Factorial designs lend themselves to a variety of analyses with Bayesian methodology. The de facto standard is Bayesian analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Monte Carlo integration. Alternative, and readily available methods, are Bayesian ANOVA with Laplace approximation as well as Bayesian t tests for individual effects. This simulation study compared the three approaches regarding ordinal and metric agreement of the resulting Bayes factors for a 2 × 2 mixed design. Simulation results indicate remarkable disagreement of the three methods in certain cases, particularly when effect sizes are small and studies include small sample sizes. Findings further replicate and extend previous observations of substantial variability of ANOVAs with Monte Carlo integration across different runs of one and the same analysis. These observations showcase important limitations of current implementations of Bayesian ANOVA. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations when interpreting corresponding analyses, ideally applying multiple approaches to establish converging results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consistency of Bayes factor estimates in Bayesian analysis of variance.\",\"authors\":\"Roland Pfister\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Factorial designs lend themselves to a variety of analyses with Bayesian methodology. The de facto standard is Bayesian analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Monte Carlo integration. Alternative, and readily available methods, are Bayesian ANOVA with Laplace approximation as well as Bayesian t tests for individual effects. This simulation study compared the three approaches regarding ordinal and metric agreement of the resulting Bayes factors for a 2 × 2 mixed design. Simulation results indicate remarkable disagreement of the three methods in certain cases, particularly when effect sizes are small and studies include small sample sizes. Findings further replicate and extend previous observations of substantial variability of ANOVAs with Monte Carlo integration across different runs of one and the same analysis. These observations showcase important limitations of current implementations of Bayesian ANOVA. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations when interpreting corresponding analyses, ideally applying multiple approaches to establish converging results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000703\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000703","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

因子设计适合采用贝叶斯方法进行各种分析。事实上的标准是采用蒙特卡罗积分的贝叶斯方差分析(ANOVA)。另一种现成的方法是采用拉普拉斯近似的贝叶斯方差分析以及针对个体效应的贝叶斯 t 检验。本模拟研究比较了这三种方法在 2 × 2 混合设计中得出的贝叶斯因子的顺序和度量一致性。模拟结果表明,在某些情况下,特别是当效应大小较小且研究样本量较小时,三种方法之间存在明显的差异。研究结果进一步复制并扩展了之前的观察结果,即在同一分析的不同运行中,使用蒙特卡洛积分的方差分析存在很大差异。这些观察结果表明了当前贝叶斯方差分析实施的重要局限性。研究人员在解释相应的分析时应注意这些局限性,最好采用多种方法来确定趋同的结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Consistency of Bayes factor estimates in Bayesian analysis of variance.
Factorial designs lend themselves to a variety of analyses with Bayesian methodology. The de facto standard is Bayesian analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Monte Carlo integration. Alternative, and readily available methods, are Bayesian ANOVA with Laplace approximation as well as Bayesian t tests for individual effects. This simulation study compared the three approaches regarding ordinal and metric agreement of the resulting Bayes factors for a 2 × 2 mixed design. Simulation results indicate remarkable disagreement of the three methods in certain cases, particularly when effect sizes are small and studies include small sample sizes. Findings further replicate and extend previous observations of substantial variability of ANOVAs with Monte Carlo integration across different runs of one and the same analysis. These observations showcase important limitations of current implementations of Bayesian ANOVA. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations when interpreting corresponding analyses, ideally applying multiple approaches to establish converging results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Item response theory-based continuous test norming. Comments on the measurement of effect sizes for indirect effects in Bayesian analysis of variance. Lagged multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis for determining leader-follower relationships within multidimensional time series. The potential of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency. Harvesting heterogeneity: Selective expertise versus machine learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1