These guidelines can be referred to by citing the package:
Based on the previous comparison of point-estimates and indices of effect existence, we can conclude that:
Thus, to minimally describe the posterior distribution of a parameter, we suggest reporting the median and the 90% CI (using HDI rather than quantiles) for parameter characterisation and, in the context of null-hypothesis testing, the Probability of Direction (pd) for effect existence and, especially in the context of confirmatory analyses, the ROPE percentage (full) with an explicitly specified range for effect significance.
The following thresholds are presented as landmarks only, and any use of such “labels” should be explicitly justified. Please consider with caution.
Probability of Direction (pd): In most cases, it seems that the pd corresponds to the frequentist one-sided p value through the formula p value = (1-pd/100)
and to the two-sided p value (the most commonly reported) through the formula p value = 2*(1-pd/100)
. Thus, a pd
of 95%
, 97.5%
99.5%
and 99.95%
corresponds approximately to a two-sided p value of respectively .1
, .05
, .01
and .001
. Thus, for convience, we recommend using the following reference values:
ROPE (full): Extra caution is required as its interpretation highly depends on other parameters such as sample size and ROPE range.
Note: If you have any advice, opinion or such, we encourage you to let us know by opening an discussion thread or making a pull request.
Based on these suggestions, a template sentence for minimal reporting of a parameter based on its posterior distribution could be: