A crucial part of statistical analysis is evaluating a model's quality and fit, or performance. During analysis, especially with regression models, investigating the fit of models to data also often involves selecting the best fitting model amongst many competing models. Upon investigation, fit indices should also be reported both visually and numerically to bring readers in on the investigative effort.The performance R-package (R Core Team, 2021) provides utilities for computing measures to assess model quality, many of which are not directly provided by R's base or stats packages. These include measures like R 2 , intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), root mean squared error (RMSE), or functions to check for vexing issues like overdispersion, singularity, or zeroinflation. These functions support a large variety of regression models including generalized linear models, (generalized) mixed-effects models, their Bayesian cousins, and many others.

Results of regression models, like estimates, are typically presented as tables that are easy to understand. Sometimes pure estimates are not helpful and difficult to interpret. This is especially true for interaction terms in logistic regression or even more complex models, or transformed terms (quadratic or cubic terms, polynomials, splines), where the estimates are no longer interpretable in a direct way. In such cases, marginal effects are far easier to understand. In particular, the visualization of marginal effects makes it possible to intuitively get the idea of how predictors and outcome are associated, even for complex models.

No abstract

No abstract

Turmoil has engulfed psychological science. Causes and consequences of the reproducibility crisis are in dispute. With the hope of addressing some of its aspects, Bayesian methods are gaining increasing attention in psychological science. Some of their advantages, as opposed to the frequentist framework, are the ability to describe parameters in probabilistic terms and explicitly incorporate prior knowledge about them into the model. These issues are crucial in particular regarding the current debate about statistical significance. Bayesian methods are not necessarily the only remedy against incorrect interpretations or wrong conclusions, but there is an increasing agreement that they are one of the keys to avoid such fallacies. Nevertheless, its flexible nature is its power and weakness, for there is no agreement about what indices of "significance" should be computed or reported. This lack of a consensual index or guidelines, such as the frequentist p-value, further contributes to the unnecessary opacity that many nonfamiliar readers perceive in Bayesian statistics. Thus, this study describes and compares several Bayesian indices, provide intuitive visual representation of their "behavior" in relationship with common sources of variance such as sample size, magnitude of effects and also frequentist significance. The results contribute to the development of an intuitive understanding of the values that researchers report, allowing to draw sensible recommendations for Bayesian statistics description, critical for the standardization of scientific reporting.