Bayesian hypothesis testing presents an attractive alternative to p value hypothesis testing. Part I of this series outlined several advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing, including the ability to quantify evidence and the ability to monitor and update this evidence as data come in, without the need to know the intention with which the data were collected. Despite these and other practical advantages, Bayesian hypothesis tests are still reported relatively rarely. An important impediment to the widespread adoption of Bayesian tests is arguably the lack of user-friendly software for the run-of-the-mill statistical problems that confront psychologists for the analysis of almost every experiment: the t-test, ANOVA, correlation, regression, and contingency tables. In Part II of this series we introduce JASP (http://www.jasp-stats.org), an open-source, cross-platform, user-friendly graphical software package that allows users to carry out Bayesian hypothesis tests for standard statistical problems. JASP is based in part on the Bayesian analyses implemented in Morey and Rouder’s BayesFactor package for R. Armed with JASP, the practical advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing are only a mouse click away.

Bayesian parameter estimation and Bayesian hypothesis testing present attractive alternatives to classical inference using confidence intervals and p values. In part I of this series we outline ten prominent advantages of the Bayesian approach. Many of these advantages translate to concrete opportunities for pragmatic researchers. For instance, Bayesian hypothesis testing allows researchers to quantify evidence and monitor its progression as data come in, without needing to know the intention with which the data were collected. We end by countering several objections to Bayesian hypothesis testing. Part II of this series discusses JASP, a free and open source software program that makes it easy to conduct Bayesian estimation and testing for a range of popular statistical scenarios (Wagenmakers et al. this issue).

Response inhibition is essential for navigating everyday life. Its derailment is considered integral to numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, and more generally, to a wide range of behavioral and health problems. Response-inhibition efficiency furthermore correlates with treatment outcome in some of these conditions. The stop-signal task is an essential tool to determine how quickly response inhibition is implemented. Despite its apparent simplicity, there are many features (ranging from task design to data analysis) that vary across studies in ways that can easily compromise the validity of the obtained results. Our goal is to facilitate a more accurate use of the stop-signal task. To this end, we provide 12 easy-to-implement consensus recommendations and point out the problems that can arise when they are not followed. Furthermore, we provide user-friendly open-source resources intended to inform statistical-power considerations, facilitate the correct implementation of the task, and assist in proper data analysis.

This paper introduces JASP, a free graphical software package for basic statistical procedures such as t tests, ANOVAs, linear regression models, and analyses of contingency tables. JASP is open-source and differentiates itself from existing open-source solutions in two ways. First, JASP provides several innovations in user interface design; specifically, results are provided immediately as the user makes changes to options, output is attractive, minimalist, and designed around the principle of progressive disclosure, and analyses can be peer reviewed without requiring a "syntax". Second, JASP provides some of the recent developments in Bayesian hypothesis testing and Bayesian parameter estimation. The ease with which these relatively complex Bayesian techniques are available in JASP encourages their broader adoption and furthers a more inclusive statistical reporting practice. The JASP analyses are implemented in R and a series of R packages.

No abstract

Statistical inference in psychology has traditionally relied heavily on p-value significance testing. This approach to drawing conclusions from data, however, has been widely criticized, and two types of remedies have been advocated. The first proposal is to supplement p values with complementary measures of evidence, such as effect sizes. The second is to replace inference with Bayesian measures of evidence, such as the Bayes factor. The authors provide a practical comparison of p values, effect sizes, and default Bayes factors as measures of statistical evidence, using 855 recently published t tests in psychology. The comparison yields two main results. First, although p values and default Bayes factors almost always agree about what hypothesis is better supported by the data, the measures often disagree about the strength of this support; for 70% of the data sets for which the p value falls between .01 and .05, the default Bayes factor indicates that the evidence is only anecdotal. Second, effect sizes can provide additional evidence to p values and default Bayes factors. The authors conclude that the Bayesian approach is comparatively prudent, preventing researchers from overestimating the evidence in favor of an effect.

Despite the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference in empirical research, few practical guidelines provide detailed recommendations for how to apply Bayesian procedures and interpret the results. Here we offer specific guidelines for four different stages of Bayesian statistical reasoning in a research setting: planning the analysis, executing the analysis, interpreting the results, and reporting the results. The guidelines for each stage are illustrated with a running example. Although the guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general.

Many psychologists do not realize that exploratory use of the popular multiway analysis of variance harbors a multiple-comparison problem. In the case of two factors, three separate null hypotheses are subject to test (i.e., two main effects and one interaction). Consequently, the probability of at least one Type I error (if all null hypotheses are true) is 14 % rather than 5 %, if the three tests are independent. We explain the multiple-comparison problem and demonstrate that researchers almost never correct for it. To mitigate the problem, we describe four remedies: the omnibus F test, control of the familywise error rate, control of the false discovery rate, and preregistration of the hypotheses.