baymedr: An R Package and Web Application for the Calculation of Bayes Factors for Superiority, Equivalence, and Non-Inferiority Designs
Authors:
Maximilian Linde,
Don van Ravenzwaaij
Abstract:
Clinical trials often seek to determine the superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority of an experimental condition (e.g., a new drug) compared to a control condition (e.g., a placebo or an already existing drug). The use of frequentist statistical methods to analyze data for these types of designs is ubiquitous even though they have several limitations. Bayesian inference remedies many of these…
▽ More
Clinical trials often seek to determine the superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority of an experimental condition (e.g., a new drug) compared to a control condition (e.g., a placebo or an already existing drug). The use of frequentist statistical methods to analyze data for these types of designs is ubiquitous even though they have several limitations. Bayesian inference remedies many of these shortcomings and allows for intuitive interpretations. In this article, we outline the frequentist conceptualization of superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority designs and discuss its disadvantages. Subsequently, we explain how Bayes factors can be used to compare the relative plausibility of competing hypotheses. We present baymedr, an R package and web application, that provides user-friendly tools for the computation of Bayes factors for superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority designs. Instructions on how to use baymedr are provided and an example illustrates how already existing results can be reanalyzed with baymedr.
△ Less
Submitted 6 May, 2022; v1 submitted 25 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
Hidden Multiplicity in Multiway ANOVA: Prevalence and Remedies
Authors:
Angelique O. J. Cramer,
Don van Ravenzwaaij,
Dora Matzke,
Helen Steingroever,
Ruud Wetzels,
Raoul P. P. P. Grasman,
Lourens J. Waldorp,
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Abstract:
Many psychologists do not realize that exploratory use of the popular multiway analysis of variance (ANOVA) 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…
▽ More
Many psychologists do not realize that exploratory use of the popular multiway analysis of variance (ANOVA) 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, the control of familywise error rate, the control of false discovery rate, and the preregistration of hypotheses.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2015; v1 submitted 10 December, 2014;
originally announced December 2014.
