Literature DB >> 29781638

A model-based test for treatment effects with probabilistic classifications.

Daniel R Cavagnaro1, Clintin P Davis-Stober2.   

Abstract

Within modern psychology, computational and statistical models play an important role in describing a wide variety of human behavior. Model selection analyses are typically used to classify individuals according to the model(s) that best describe their behavior. These classifications are inherently probabilistic, which presents challenges for performing group-level analyses, such as quantifying the effect of an experimental manipulation. We answer this challenge by presenting a method for quantifying treatment effects in terms of distributional changes in model-based (i.e., probabilistic) classifications across treatment conditions. The method uses hierarchical Bayesian mixture modeling to incorporate classification uncertainty at the individual level into the test for a treatment effect at the group level. We illustrate the method with several worked examples, including a reanalysis of the data from Kellen, Mata, and Davis-Stober (2017), and analyze its performance more generally through simulation studies. Our simulations show that the method is both more powerful and less prone to type-1 errors than Fisher's exact test when classifications are uncertain. In the special case where classifications are deterministic, we find a near-perfect power-law relationship between the Bayes factor, derived from our method, and the p value obtained from Fisher's exact test. We provide code in an online supplement that allows researchers to apply the method to their own data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29781638      PMCID: PMC6249127          DOI: 10.1037/met0000173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  25 in total

1.  When a good fit can be bad.

Authors:  Mark A. Pitt; In Jae Myung
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights.

Authors:  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Simon Farrell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-02

3.  Bayesian evaluation of inequality and equality constrained hypotheses for contingency tables.

Authors:  Irene Klugkist; Olav Laudy; Herbert Hoijtink
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-09

4.  The problem with categorical thinking by psychologists.

Authors:  Michael E Young
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method.

Authors:  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Tom Lodewyckx; Himanshu Kuriyal; Raoul Grasman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory.

Authors:  Bengt Muthén; Tihomir Asparouhov
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-09

7.  Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs.

Authors:  Rivka M de Vries; Richard D Morey
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2013-03-04

8.  qCSF in clinical application: efficient characterization and classification of contrast sensitivity functions in amblyopia.

Authors:  Fang Hou; Chang-Bing Huang; Luis Lesmes; Li-Xia Feng; Liming Tao; Yi-Feng Zhou; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 9.  Using Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation to assess the generalizability of cognitive models of choice.

Authors:  Benjamin Scheibehenne; Thorsten Pachur
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

10.  HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the Drift-Diffusion Model in Python.

Authors:  Thomas V Wiecki; Imri Sofer; Michael J Frank
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.081

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cognitive Aging and Tests of Rationality.

Authors:  Sanghyuk Park; Clintin P Davis-Stober; Hope K Snyder; William Messner; Michel Regenwetter
Journal:  Span J Psychol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 1.264

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.