Every data analyst knows that a good graph is worth a thousand words, and perhaps a hundred tables. But how should one create a good, clean graph? In R, this task is anything but

A Bayes factor (BF) is a statistical index that quantifies the evidence for a hypothesis, compared to an alternative hypothesis (for introductions to Bayes factors, see here, here or here). Although the BF is a continuous measure of evidence, humans love verbal labels, categories, and benchmarks. Labels give interpretations of the objective index – and

I want to present a re-analysis of the raw data from two studies that investigated whether physical cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments – from the original study (n = 40; Schnall, Benton, & Harvey, 2008), and from a direct replication (n = 208, Johnson, Cheung, & Donnellan, 2014). Both data sets are provided

In a recent post on the DataColada blog, Uri Simonsohn wrote about “We cannot afford to study effect size in the lab“. The central message is: If we want accurate effect size (ES) estimates, we need large sample sizes (he suggests four-digit n’s). As this is hardly possible in the lab we have to use

The probably most frequent criticism of Bayesian statistics sounds something like “It’s all subjective – with the ‘right’ prior, you can get any result you want.”. In order to approach this criticism it has been suggested to do a sensitivity analysis (or robustness analysis), that demonstrates how the choice of priors affects the conclusions drawn

I am starting to familiarize myself with Bayesian statistics. In this post I’ll show some insights I had concerning Bayes factors (BF). What are Bayes factors? Bayes factors provide a numerical value that quantifies how well a hypothesis predicts the empirical data relative to a competing hypothesis. For example, if the BF is 4, this

Today a new version (0.23.1) of the WRS package (Wilcox’ Robust Statistics) has been released. This package is the companion to his rather exhaustive book on robust statistics, “Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing” (Amazon Link de/us). For a fail-safe installation of the package, follow this instruction. As a guest post, Rand Wilcox describes

One critique frequently heard about Bayesian statistics is the subjectivity of the assumed prior distribution. If one is cherry-picking a prior, of course the posterior can be tweaked, especially when only few data points are at hand. For example, see the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics: In the uncommon situation that the data are extensive