Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches
This article discusses comparisons of means using exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Three methods are discussed: hypothesis testing, model selection based on information criteria, and Bayesian model selection. Throughout the article, an example is used to illustrate and evaluate the two appro...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological methods 2010-03, Vol.15 (1), p.69-86 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 86 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 69 |
| container_title | Psychological methods |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Kuiper, Rebecca M Hoijtink, Herbert |
| description | This article discusses comparisons of means using exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Three methods are discussed: hypothesis testing, model selection based on information criteria, and Bayesian model selection. Throughout the article, an example is used to illustrate and evaluate the two approaches and the three methods. We demonstrate that confirmatory hypothesis testing techniques have more power-that is, have a higher probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis-and confirmatory model selection techniques have a higher probability of choosing the correct or the best hypothesis than their exploratory counterparts. Furthermore, we show that if more than one hypothesis has to be evaluated, model selection has advantages over hypothesis testing. Another, more elaborate example is used to further illustrate confirmatory model selection. The article concludes with recommendations: When a researcher is able to specify reasonable expectations and hypotheses, confirmatory model selection should be used; otherwise, exploratory model selection should be used. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/a0018720 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_742725917</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ878319</ericid><sourcerecordid>614519077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a420t-29d15a3bba59d63f70d94125c0c5a3b9052b9354284868bf346818e4cc62800c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0Utr3DAQAGARWpp0U-gPKMW0lObidPSypGO6bB8hIZcGchNjWW4dbMuRvND999XiTQq99KRh5mM0GhHymsI5Ba4-IQDVisEROaGGm5KKij_LMWhWGm3ujsnLlO4zElyLF-SYAeNAQZyQz-swTBi7FMZUhLa49piD29SNP4vN76kPEecQdwWOTbEOY9vFYUlcTFMM6H75dEqet9gn_-pwrsjtl82P9bfy6ubr9_XFVYmCwVwy01CJvK5RmqbirYLGCMqkA7dPG5CsNlwKpoWudN1yUWmqvXCuYhrA8RX5uPTNFz9sfZrt0CXn-x5HH7bJKsEUk4aq_0vOFWVCiizf_SPvwzaO-Rm2okJSA2rf7mxBLoaUom_tFLsB485SsPv928f9Z_r20G9bD755go8Lz-DDAWBy2LcRR9elv45JmseqsnuzOB8791TeXGqlef7iFXm_lHFCO6Wdwzh3rvfJDn62VFpqK8P_ACEinyE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614519077</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Kuiper, Rebecca M ; Hoijtink, Herbert</creator><creatorcontrib>Kuiper, Rebecca M ; Hoijtink, Herbert</creatorcontrib><description>This article discusses comparisons of means using exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Three methods are discussed: hypothesis testing, model selection based on information criteria, and Bayesian model selection. Throughout the article, an example is used to illustrate and evaluate the two approaches and the three methods. We demonstrate that confirmatory hypothesis testing techniques have more power-that is, have a higher probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis-and confirmatory model selection techniques have a higher probability of choosing the correct or the best hypothesis than their exploratory counterparts. Furthermore, we show that if more than one hypothesis has to be evaluated, model selection has advantages over hypothesis testing. Another, more elaborate example is used to further illustrate confirmatory model selection. The article concludes with recommendations: When a researcher is able to specify reasonable expectations and hypotheses, confirmatory model selection should be used; otherwise, exploratory model selection should be used.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1082-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1463</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/a0018720</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20230104</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Bayesian Statistics ; Biological and medical sciences ; Causality ; Evaluation Methods ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Humans ; Hypothesis Testing ; Null Hypothesis ; Probability ; Psychological Theory ; Psychology - methods ; Psychology - statistics & numerical data ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology ; Research Methodology ; Selection ; Statistical Analysis ; Statistics. Mathematics ; Testing</subject><ispartof>Psychological methods, 2010-03, Vol.15 (1), p.69-86</ispartof><rights>2010 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2010, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a420t-29d15a3bba59d63f70d94125c0c5a3b9052b9354284868bf346818e4cc62800c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,31000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ878319$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22515436$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230104$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kuiper, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoijtink, Herbert</creatorcontrib><title>Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches</title><title>Psychological methods</title><addtitle>Psychol Methods</addtitle><description>This article discusses comparisons of means using exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Three methods are discussed: hypothesis testing, model selection based on information criteria, and Bayesian model selection. Throughout the article, an example is used to illustrate and evaluate the two approaches and the three methods. We demonstrate that confirmatory hypothesis testing techniques have more power-that is, have a higher probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis-and confirmatory model selection techniques have a higher probability of choosing the correct or the best hypothesis than their exploratory counterparts. Furthermore, we show that if more than one hypothesis has to be evaluated, model selection has advantages over hypothesis testing. Another, more elaborate example is used to further illustrate confirmatory model selection. The article concludes with recommendations: When a researcher is able to specify reasonable expectations and hypotheses, confirmatory model selection should be used; otherwise, exploratory model selection should be used.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Bayesian Statistics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypothesis Testing</subject><subject>Null Hypothesis</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Psychological Theory</subject><subject>Psychology - methods</subject><subject>Psychology - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology</subject><subject>Research Methodology</subject><subject>Selection</subject><subject>Statistical Analysis</subject><subject>Statistics. Mathematics</subject><subject>Testing</subject><issn>1082-989X</issn><issn>1939-1463</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0Utr3DAQAGARWpp0U-gPKMW0lObidPSypGO6bB8hIZcGchNjWW4dbMuRvND999XiTQq99KRh5mM0GhHymsI5Ba4-IQDVisEROaGGm5KKij_LMWhWGm3ujsnLlO4zElyLF-SYAeNAQZyQz-swTBi7FMZUhLa49piD29SNP4vN76kPEecQdwWOTbEOY9vFYUlcTFMM6H75dEqet9gn_-pwrsjtl82P9bfy6ubr9_XFVYmCwVwy01CJvK5RmqbirYLGCMqkA7dPG5CsNlwKpoWudN1yUWmqvXCuYhrA8RX5uPTNFz9sfZrt0CXn-x5HH7bJKsEUk4aq_0vOFWVCiizf_SPvwzaO-Rm2okJSA2rf7mxBLoaUom_tFLsB485SsPv928f9Z_r20G9bD755go8Lz-DDAWBy2LcRR9elv45JmseqsnuzOB8791TeXGqlef7iFXm_lHFCO6Wdwzh3rvfJDn62VFpqK8P_ACEinyE</recordid><startdate>20100301</startdate><enddate>20100301</enddate><creator>Kuiper, Rebecca M</creator><creator>Hoijtink, Herbert</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100301</creationdate><title>Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches</title><author>Kuiper, Rebecca M ; Hoijtink, Herbert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a420t-29d15a3bba59d63f70d94125c0c5a3b9052b9354284868bf346818e4cc62800c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Bayesian Statistics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypothesis Testing</topic><topic>Null Hypothesis</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Psychological Theory</topic><topic>Psychology - methods</topic><topic>Psychology - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology</topic><topic>Research Methodology</topic><topic>Selection</topic><topic>Statistical Analysis</topic><topic>Statistics. Mathematics</topic><topic>Testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kuiper, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoijtink, Herbert</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Psychological methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kuiper, Rebecca M</au><au>Hoijtink, Herbert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ878319</ericid><atitle>Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches</atitle><jtitle>Psychological methods</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Methods</addtitle><date>2010-03-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>69</spage><epage>86</epage><pages>69-86</pages><issn>1082-989X</issn><eissn>1939-1463</eissn><abstract>This article discusses comparisons of means using exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Three methods are discussed: hypothesis testing, model selection based on information criteria, and Bayesian model selection. Throughout the article, an example is used to illustrate and evaluate the two approaches and the three methods. We demonstrate that confirmatory hypothesis testing techniques have more power-that is, have a higher probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis-and confirmatory model selection techniques have a higher probability of choosing the correct or the best hypothesis than their exploratory counterparts. Furthermore, we show that if more than one hypothesis has to be evaluated, model selection has advantages over hypothesis testing. Another, more elaborate example is used to further illustrate confirmatory model selection. The article concludes with recommendations: When a researcher is able to specify reasonable expectations and hypotheses, confirmatory model selection should be used; otherwise, exploratory model selection should be used.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>20230104</pmid><doi>10.1037/a0018720</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1082-989X |
| ispartof | Psychological methods, 2010-03, Vol.15 (1), p.69-86 |
| issn | 1082-989X 1939-1463 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_742725917 |
| source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | Analysis of Variance Bayesian Statistics Biological and medical sciences Causality Evaluation Methods Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Humans Hypothesis Testing Null Hypothesis Probability Psychological Theory Psychology - methods Psychology - statistics & numerical data Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology Research Methodology Selection Statistical Analysis Statistics. Mathematics Testing |
| title | Comparisons of Means Using Exploratory and Confirmatory Approaches |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T01%3A40%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparisons%20of%20Means%20Using%20Exploratory%20and%20Confirmatory%20Approaches&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20methods&rft.au=Kuiper,%20Rebecca%20M&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=69&rft.epage=86&rft.pages=69-86&rft.issn=1082-989X&rft.eissn=1939-1463&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/a0018720&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614519077%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614519077&rft_id=info:pmid/20230104&rft_ericid=EJ878319&rfr_iscdi=true |