Office of Research and Academia-Government-Community Collaboration, Education and Research Center for Artificial Intelligence and Data Innovation, Hiroshima University.
Department of Psychometrics and Statistics, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen.
Psychol Methods. 2022 Jun;27(3):466-475. doi: 10.1037/met0000505.
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).
2019 年，我们在《心理方法》杂志上发表了一篇关于零假设贝叶斯检验及其主要工具贝叶斯因子的文章（Tendeiro & Kiers，2019）。最近，van Ravenzwaaij 和 Wagenmakers（2021）在同一杂志上对我们的文章做出了回应。尽管我们欢迎他们对我们文章的深思熟虑的评论，但我们最终得出结论，van Ravenzwaaij 和 Wagenmakers（2021）中有太多的“问题”需要反驳。在这篇文章中，我们既为我们原始文章的主要前提辩护，也对 van Ravenzwaaij 和 Wagenmakers（2021）的贡献进行了批判性评估。我们希望学者之间的这种交流能够为心理学家们对零假设贝叶斯检验，特别是对贝叶斯因子的理解提供帮助。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
