Default “Gunel and Dickey” Bayes factors for contingency tables
Tóm tắt
The analysis of R×C contingency tables usually features a test for independence between row and column counts. Throughout the social sciences, the adequacy of the independence hypothesis is generally evaluated by the outcome of a classical p-value null-hypothesis significance test. Unfortunately, however, the classical p-value comes with a number of well-documented drawbacks. Here we outline an alternative, Bayes factor method to quantify the evidence for and against the hypothesis of independence in R×C contingency tables. First we describe different sampling models for contingency tables and provide the corresponding default Bayes factors as originally developed by Gunel and Dickey (Biometrika, 61(3):545–557 (1974)). We then illustrate the properties and advantages of a Bayes factor analysis of contingency tables through simulations and practical examples. Computer code is available online and has been incorporated in the “BayesFactor” R package and the JASP program (
jasp-stats.org
).
Từ khóa
#Cognitive PsychologyTài liệu tham khảo
Albert, J. (2007). Bayesian computation with R: Springer.
Altham, P.M. (1969). Exact Bayesian analysis of a 2 × 2 contingency table, and Fisher’s “exact” significance test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 31(2), 261–269.
Altham, P.M. (1971). The analysis of matched proportions. Biometrika, 58(3), 561–576.
Andersen, E.B. (1990). The statistical analysis of categorical data. Berlin: Springer.
Anderson, C.J. (1993). The analysis of multivariate, longitudinal categorical data by Log-Multilinear models. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Barnard, G.A. (1945). A new test for 2×2 tables. Nature, 156, 177.
Berger, J.O., & Delampady, M. (1987). Testing precise hypotheses. Statistical Science, 2, 317–352.
Berger, J.O., & Wolpert, R.L. (1988). The likelihood principle, 2nd edn. Hayward: Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
de Bragança Pereira, C.A., & Stern, J.M. (1999). Evidence and credibility: full Bayesian significance test for precise hypotheses. Entropy, 1(4), 99–110.
Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274–290.
Donkin, C., Brown, S., Heathcote, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: Different models but the same conclusions about psychological processes? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 61–69.
Dutton, D.G., & Aron, A.P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 510.
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L.J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193–242.
Forster, J.J. (2010). Bayesian inference for poisson and multinomial log-linear models. Statistical Methodology, 7(3), 210–224.
Gamerman, D., & Lopes, H.F. (2006). Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & hall/CRC.
Gilks, W.R., Richardson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D.J. (Eds.) (1996). Markov chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Good, I.J. (1965). The estimation of probabilities: An essay on modern Bayesian methods volume 258. Cambridge: MIT press.
Good, I.J. (1967). A Bayesian significance test for multinomial distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 29(3), 399–431.
Good, I.J., & Crook, J.F. (1987). The robustness and sensitivity of the mixed-Dirichlet Bayesian test for “independence” in contingency tables. The Annals of Statistics, 15(2), 670–693.
Gunel, E., & Dickey, J. (1974). Bayes factors for independence in contingency tables. Biometrika, 61(3), 545–557.
Hraba, J., & Grant, G. (1970). Black is beautiful: a reexamination of racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 398.
Hubbard, R., & Bayarri, M.J. (2003). Confusion over measures of evidence (p’s) versus errors ( α’s) in classical statistical testing. The American Statistician, 57, 171–182.
Jeffreys, H. (1935). Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophy Society, 31, 203–222.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kass, R.E., & Raftery, A.E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795.
Klugkist, I., Laudy, O., & Hoijtink, H. (2005). Inequality constrained analysis of variance: A Bayesian approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 477–493.
Kramer, L., & Gottman, J.M. (1992). Becoming a sibling: “with a little help from my friends”. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 685.
Lee, M.D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian Modeling for Cognitive Science: A Practical Course: Cambridge University Press.
Morey, R.D., & Rouder, J.N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9. 10-1.
Morey, R.D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Simple relation between Bayesian order–restricted and point–null hypothesis tests.
Myung, I.J., & Pitt, M.A. (1997). Applying Occam’s razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 79–95.
O’Hagan, A., Forster, J., & Kendall, M.G. (2004). Bayesian inference. London: Arnold.
Overstall, A., & King, R. (2014). Conting: an r package for bayesian analysis of complete and incomplete contingency tables. Journal of Statistical Software, 58(7), 1–27.
Pearson, K. (1904). On the theory of contingency and its relation to association and normal correlation. London: Dulau and Co.
Pericchi, L.R., Liu, G., & Torres, D. (2008). Objective Bayes factors for informative hypotheses: “Completing” the informative hypothesis and “splitting” the Bayes factor. In Hoijtink, H., Klugkist, I., & Boelen, P.A. (Eds.), Bayesian Evaluation of Informative Hypotheses (pp. 131–154). New York: Springer.
Plummer, M. (2003). JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Hornik, K., Leisch, F., & Zeileis, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
Rouder, J.N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 301–308.
Rouder, J.N., Morey, R.D., Verhagen, A.J., Swagman, A.R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (in press). Bayesian analysis of factorial designs. Psychological Methods.
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779– 804.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Grünwald, P., & Steyvers, M. (2006). Accumulative prediction error and the selection of time series models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 149–166.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lee, M.D., Lodewyckx, T., & Iverson, G. (2008). Bayesian versus frequentist inference. In Hoijtink, H., Klugkist, I., & Boelen, P.A. (Eds.), Bayesian Evaluation of Informative Hypotheses (pp. 181–207). New York: Springer.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lodewyckx, T., Kuriyal, H., & Grasman, R. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the savage–dickey method. Cognitive Psychology, 60(3), 158– 189.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, A.J., Love, J., Šmíra, M., ..., & Morey, R.D. (2016). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological science Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Accepted pending minor revision, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Morey, R.D., & Lee, M.D. (in press). Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Verhagen, A.J., Ly, A., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Rouder, J.N., & Morey, R.D. (in press). The need for Bayesian hypothesis testing in psychological science. In Lilienfeld, S.O., & Waldman, I. (Eds.), Psychological Science Under Scrutiny: Recent Challenges and Proposed Solutions: Wiley.