Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

615
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
615
Statistical Hypothesis Testing01:16

Statistical Hypothesis Testing

7.0K
Hypothesis testing is a critical statistical procedure facilitating informed, evidence-based decisions. It begins with a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation, or a prediction about a population parameter. This hypothesis can be either a null hypothesis (H0), indicating no effect or difference, or an alternative hypothesis (Ha), suggesting an effect or difference.
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
7.0K
Null and Alternative Hypotheses01:16

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

12.9K
The actual hypothesis testing begins by considering two hypotheses. They are termed  the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As  a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the...
12.9K
One-Way ANOVA01:18

One-Way ANOVA

13.3K
One-way ANOVA analyzes more than three samples categorized by one factor. For example, it can compare the average mileage of sports bikes. Here, the data is categorized by one factor - the company. However, one-way ANOVA cannot be used to simultaneously compare the sample mean of three or more samples categorized by two factors. An example of two factors would be sports bikes from different companies driven in different terrains, such as a desert or snowy landscape. Here, two-way ANOVA is used...
13.3K
Types of Hypothesis Testing01:11

Types of Hypothesis Testing

28.2K
There are three types of hypothesis tests: right-tailed, left-tailed, and two-tailed.
When the null and alternative hypotheses are stated, it is observed that the null hypothesis is a neutral statement against which the alternative hypothesis is tested. The alternative hypothesis is a claim that instead has a certain direction. If the null hypothesis claims that p = 0.5, the alternative hypothesis would be an opposing statement to this and can be put either p > 0.5, p < 0.5, or p...
28.2K
Decision Making: Traditional Method01:14

Decision Making: Traditional Method

5.6K
The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
5.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The value and experience-based model of behaviour change (VEM-BC).

Health psychology review·2026
Same author

Older Adults' Motivators and Barriers to Using Mindfulness Apps for Stress Management in Brain Health Interventions: Interview Study.

JMIR formative research·2026
Same author

Disentangling the multifaceted nature of certainty in evaluations.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2025
Same author

National- and State-level SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Trends From January 2020 to December 2023: a Mathematical Modeling Analysis.

The Journal of infectious diseases·2025
Same author

Reshaping the happy face advantage with reinforcement learning.

Cognition & emotion·2025
Same author

Statistical Relationship Between Wastewater Data and Case Notifications for COVID-19 Surveillance in the United States From 2020 to 2023: Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling Approach.

JMIR public health and surveillance·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 16, 2026

Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities
10:26

Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Published on: September 11, 2021

4.5K

All for one or some for all? Evaluating informative hypotheses using multiple N = 1 studies.

Fayette Klaassen1, Claire M Zedelius2, Harm Veling3

  • 1Department of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508, TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands. klaassen.fayette@gmail.com.

Behavior Research Methods
|December 17, 2017
PubMed
Summary

This study introduces the gP-BF, a novel method for analyzing individual participant data using averaged Bayes factors. It assesses hypothesis preferences across individuals, offering insights into data homogeneity.

Keywords:
Bayes factorInformative hypothesesN = 1 studiesWithin-subject experiment

More Related Videos

Probing the Limits of Egg Recognition Using Egg Rejection Experiments Along Phenotypic Gradients
07:34

Probing the Limits of Egg Recognition Using Egg Rejection Experiments Along Phenotypic Gradients

Published on: August 22, 2018

8.6K
The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

6.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 16, 2026

Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities
10:26

Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Published on: September 11, 2021

4.5K
Probing the Limits of Egg Recognition Using Egg Rejection Experiments Along Phenotypic Gradients
07:34

Probing the Limits of Egg Recognition Using Egg Rejection Experiments Along Phenotypic Gradients

Published on: August 22, 2018

8.6K
The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

6.4K

Area of Science:

  • Statistics
  • Psychology
  • Behavioral Science

Background:

  • Traditional analyses focus on population-level data, often overlooking individual performance variations.
  • Interest is shifting towards understanding individual responses in N=1 experiments with dichotomous outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a novel method, the gP-BF (generalized posterior Bayes factor), for averaging individual Bayes factors.
  • To evaluate informative hypotheses at the individual level and assess their homogeneity across participants.
  • To introduce supporting metrics: evidence rate (ER) and stability rate (SR) for enhanced interpretation.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized multiple N=1 experiments with dichotomous outcomes across various conditions.
  • Calculated individual Bayes factors to evaluate informative hypotheses for each participant.
  • Proposed the gP-BF by averaging individual Bayes factors to determine overall hypothesis preference.

Main Results:

  • The gP-BF effectively determines if a hypothesis is preferred across all investigated individuals.
  • The gP-BF provides insights into the homogeneity of hypothesis preference among individuals.
  • ER and SR metrics support the interpretation of the gP-BF, quantifying evidence and stability.

Conclusions:

  • The gP-BF offers a robust approach for analyzing individual-level data in N=1 experiments.
  • This method enhances understanding of hypothesis support and its consistency across participants.
  • Available software facilitates the application and sensitivity analysis of this novel statistical approach.