Alexander Etz, Adriana F Chávez de la Peña, Luis Baroja, Kathleen Medriano, Joachim Vandekerckhove
{"title":"The HDI + ROPE decision rule is logically incoherent but we can fix it.","authors":"Alexander Etz, Adriana F Chávez de la Peña, Luis Baroja, Kathleen Medriano, Joachim Vandekerckhove","doi":"10.1037/met0000660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Bayesian highest-density interval plus region of practical equivalence (HDI + ROPE) decision rule is an increasingly common approach to testing null parameter values. The decision procedure involves a comparison between a posterior highest-density interval (HDI) and a prespecified region of practical equivalence. One then accepts or rejects the null parameter value depending on the overlap (or lack thereof) between these intervals. Here, we demonstrate, both theoretically and through examples, that this procedure is logically incoherent. Because the HDI is not transformation invariant, the ultimate inferential decision depends on statistically arbitrary and scientifically irrelevant properties of the statistical model. The incoherence arises from a common confusion between probability density and probability proper. The HDI + ROPE procedure relies on characterizing posterior densities as opposed to being based directly on probability. We conclude with recommendations for alternative Bayesian testing procedures that do not exhibit this pathology and provide a \"quick fix\" in the form of quantile intervals. This article is the work of the authors and is reformatted from the original, which was published under a <i>CC-BY Attribution 4.0 International</i> license and is available at https://psyarxiv.com/5p2qt/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000660","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Bayesian highest-density interval plus region of practical equivalence (HDI + ROPE) decision rule is an increasingly common approach to testing null parameter values. The decision procedure involves a comparison between a posterior highest-density interval (HDI) and a prespecified region of practical equivalence. One then accepts or rejects the null parameter value depending on the overlap (or lack thereof) between these intervals. Here, we demonstrate, both theoretically and through examples, that this procedure is logically incoherent. Because the HDI is not transformation invariant, the ultimate inferential decision depends on statistically arbitrary and scientifically irrelevant properties of the statistical model. The incoherence arises from a common confusion between probability density and probability proper. The HDI + ROPE procedure relies on characterizing posterior densities as opposed to being based directly on probability. We conclude with recommendations for alternative Bayesian testing procedures that do not exhibit this pathology and provide a "quick fix" in the form of quantile intervals. This article is the work of the authors and is reformatted from the original, which was published under a CC-BY Attribution 4.0 International license and is available at https://psyarxiv.com/5p2qt/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.