The BayesFactor has a number of prior settings that should provide for a consistent Bayes factor. In this document, Bayes factors are checked for consistency.
The independent samples t test and ANOVA functions should provide the same answers with the default prior settings.
# Create data
x <- rnorm(20)
x[1:10] = x[1:10] + .2
grp = factor(rep(1:2,each=10))
dat = data.frame(x=x,grp=grp)
t.test(x ~ grp, data=dat)
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: x by grp
## t = 0.5, df = 17, p-value = 0.6
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group 1 and group 2 is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.793 1.255
## sample estimates:
## mean in group 1 mean in group 2
## 0.411 0.180
If the prior settings are consistent, then all three of these numbers should be the same.
## Alt., r=0.707
## 0.431
## grp
## 0.431
## grp
## 0.431
In a paired design with an additive random factor and and a fixed effect with two levels, the Bayes factors should be the same, regardless of whether we treat the fixed factor as a factor or as a dummy-coded covariate.
# create some data
id = rnorm(10)
eff = c(-1,1)*1
effCross = outer(id,eff,'+')+rnorm(length(id)*2)
dat = data.frame(x=as.vector(effCross),id=factor(1:10), grp=factor(rep(1:2,each=length(id))))
dat$forReg = as.numeric(dat$grp)-1.5
idOnly = lmBF(x~id, data=dat, whichRandom="id")
summary(aov(x~grp+Error(id/grp),data=dat))
##
## Error: id
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## Residuals 9 49.1 5.46
##
## Error: id:grp
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## grp 1 25.3 25.33 17.1 0.0025 **
## Residuals 9 13.3 1.48
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
If the prior settings are consistent, these two numbers should be almost the same (within MC estimation error).
## grp + id
## 23.1
## forReg + id
## 23.2
Given the effect size $\hat{\delta}=t\sqrt{N_{eff}}$, where the effective sample size Neff is the sample size in the one-sample case, and $$ N_{eff} = \frac{N_1N_2}{N_1+N_2} $$ in the two-sample case, the Bayes factors should be the same for the one-sample and two sample case, given the same observed effect size, save for the difference from the degrees of freedom that affects the shape of the noncentral t likelihood. The difference from the degrees of freedom should get smaller for a given t as Neff → ∞.
# create some data
tstat = 3
NTwoSample = 500
effSampleSize = (NTwoSample^2)/(2*NTwoSample)
effSize = tstat/sqrt(effSampleSize)
# One sample
x0 = rnorm(effSampleSize)
x0 = (x0 - mean(x0))/sd(x0) + effSize
t.test(x0)
##
## One Sample t-test
##
## data: x0
## t = 3, df = 249, p-value = 0.003
## alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.0652 0.3143
## sample estimates:
## mean of x
## 0.19
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: x2 and x1
## t = 3, df = 998, p-value = 0.003
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.0656 0.3138
## sample estimates:
## mean of x mean of y
## 1.90e-01 4.98e-18
These (log) Bayes factors should be approximately the same.
## Alt., r=0.707
## 1.72
## Alt., r=0.707
## 1.77
A paired sample t test and a linear mixed effects model should broadly agree. The two are based on different models — the paired t test has the participant effects substracted out, while the linear mixed effects model has a prior on the participant effects — but we’d expect them to lead to the same conclusions.
These two Bayes factors should be lead to similar conclusions.
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: dat$x[dat$grp == 1] and dat$x[dat$grp == 2]
## t = -4, df = 9, p-value = 0.003
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -3.48 -1.02
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## -2.25
## grp + id
## 23.1
## Alt., r=0.707
## 18.9
This document was compiled with version 0.9.12-4.6 of BayesFactor (R version 4.4.1 (2024-06-14) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu).