IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v44y2020i4p354-375.html

Reporting Bayesian Results

Author

Listed:
  • David Rindskopf

Abstract

Because of the different philosophy of Bayesian statistics, where parameters are random variables and data are considered fixed, the analysis and presentation of results will differ from that of frequentist statistics. Most importantly, the probabilities that a parameter is in certain regions of the parameter space are crucial quantities in Bayesian statistics that are not calculable (or considered important) in the frequentist approach that is the basis of much of traditional statistics. In this article, I discuss the implications of these differences for presentation of the results of Bayesian analyses. In doing so, I present more detailed guidelines than are usually provided and explain the rationale for my suggestions.

Suggested Citation

  • David Rindskopf, 2020. "Reporting Bayesian Results," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 354-375, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:354-375
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X20977619
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X20977619
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X20977619?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krnjajić, Milovan & Draper, David, 2014. "Bayesian model comparison: Log scores and DIC," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 9-14.
    2. David J. Spiegelhalter & Laurence S. Freedman & Mahesh K. B. Parmar, 1994. "Bayesian Approaches to Randomized Trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 157(3), pages 357-387, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco De Pretis & Barbara Osimani, 2019. "New Insights in Computational Methods for Pharmacovigilance: E-Synthesis , a Bayesian Framework for Causal Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    3. Xiaowen Dai & Libin Jin & Maozai Tian & Lei Shi, 2019. "Bayesian Local Influence for Spatial Autoregressive Models with Heteroscedasticity," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 60(5), pages 1423-1446, October.
    4. Paul Gustafson & Nhu D. Le & Refik Saskin, 2001. "Case–Control Analysis with Partial Knowledge of Exposure Misclassification Probabilities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 598-609, June.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 2021. "Econometrics for Decision Making: Building Foundations Sketched by Haavelmo and Wald," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(6), pages 2827-2853, November.
    6. Isakov, Leah & Lo, Andrew W. & Montazerhodjat, Vahid, 2019. "Is the FDA too conservative or too aggressive?: A Bayesian decision analysis of clinical trial design," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 117-136.
    7. Jingjing Ye & Gregory Reaman, 2022. "Improving Early Futility Determination by Learning from External Data in Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(2), pages 337-351, July.
    8. Kruschke, John K. & Liddell, Torrin, 2016. "The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective," OSF Preprints ksfyr, Center for Open Science.
    9. Bradley P. Carlin & James S. Hodges, 1999. "Hierarchical Proportional Hazards Regression Models for Highly Stratified Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1162-1170, December.
    10. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    11. Norman Simón Rodríguez Cano, 2018. "Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas," Ensayos de Economía 17296, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    12. Isa Marques & Paul F. V. Wiemann & Thomas Kneib, 2023. "A Variance Partitioning Multi-level Model for Forest Inventory Data with a Fixed Plot Design," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(4), pages 706-725, December.
    13. Leonardo Iacovone & David McKenzie & Rachael Meager, 2025. "Bayesian Impact Evaluation With Informative Priors: An Application to a Colombian Management and Export Improvement Program," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 93(5), pages 1915-1935, September.
    14. Francisco-José Polo & Miguel Negrín & Xavier Badía & Montse Roset, 2005. "Bayesian regression models for cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 45-52, March.
    15. Danila Azzolina & Giulia Lorenzoni & Silvia Bressan & Liviana Da Dalt & Ileana Baldi & Dario Gregori, 2021. "Handling Poor Accrual in Pediatric Trials: A Simulation Study Using a Bayesian Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Martin E. Backhouse, 1998. "An investment appraisal approach to clinical trial design," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 605-619, November.
    17. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 95-109, January.
    18. Peter F. Thall & Richard M. Simon & Yu Shen, 2000. "Approximate Bayesian Evaluation of Multiple Treatment Effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 213-219, March.
    19. David M. Rindskopf & William R. Shadish & M. H. Clark, 2018. "Using Bayesian Correspondence Criteria to Compare Results From a Randomized Experiment and a Quasi-Experiment Allowing Self-Selection," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 248-280, April.
    20. Nandini Dendukuri & Lawrence Joseph, 2001. "Bayesian Approaches to Modeling the Conditional Dependence Between Multiple Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 158-167, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:4:p:354-375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.