Kappa coefficients are commonly used for quantifying reliability on a categorical scale, whereas correlation coefficients are commonly applied to assess reliability on an interval scale. Both types of coefficients can be used to assess the reliability of ordinal rating scales. In this study, we compare seven reliability coefficients for ordinal rating scales: the kappa coefficients included are Cohen’s kappa, linearly weighted kappa, and quadratically weighted kappa; the correlation coefficients included are intraclass correlation ICC(3,1), Pearson’s correlation, Spearman’s rho, and Kendall’s tau-b. The primary goal is to provide a thorough understanding of these coefficients such that the applied researcher can make a sensible choice for ordinal rating scales. A second aim is to find out whether the choice of the coefficient matters. We studied to what extent we reach the same conclusions about inter-rater reliability with different coefficients, and to what extent the coefficients measure agreement in a similar way, using analytic methods, and simulated and empirical data. Using analytical methods, it is shown that differences between quadratic kappa and the Pearson and intraclass correlations increase if agreement becomes larger. Differences between the three coefficients are generally small if differences between rater means and variances are small. Furthermore, using simulated and empirical data, it is shown that differences between all reliability coefficients tend to increase if agreement between the raters increases. Moreover, for the data in this study, the same conclusion about inter-rater reliability was reached in virtually all cases with the four correlation coefficients. In addition, using quadratically weighted kappa, we reached a similar conclusion as with any correlation coefficient a great number of times. Hence, for the data in this study, it does not really matter which of these five coefficients is used. Moreover, the four correlation coefficients and quadratically weighted kappa tend to measure agreement in a similar way: their values are very highly correlated for the data in this study.

A valid interpretation of most statistical techniques requires that one or more assumptions be met. In published articles, however, little information tends to be reported on whether the data satisfy the assumptions underlying the statistical techniques used. This could be due to self-selection: Only manuscripts with data fulfilling the assumptions are submitted. Another explanation could be that violations of assumptions are rarely checked for in the first place. We studied whether and how 30 researchers checked fictitious data for violations of assumptions in their own working environment. Participants were asked to analyze the data as they would their own data, for which often used and well-known techniques such as the t-procedure, ANOVA and regression (or non-parametric alternatives) were required. It was found that the assumptions of the techniques were rarely checked, and that if they were, it was regularly by means of a statistical test. Interviews afterward revealed a general lack of knowledge about assumptions, the robustness of the techniques with regards to the assumptions, and how (or whether) assumptions should be checked. These data suggest that checking for violations of assumptions is not a well-considered choice, and that the use of statistics can be described as opportunistic.

Data integration is currently one of the main challenges in the biomedical sciences. Often different pieces of information are gathered on the same set of entities (e.g., tissues, culture samples, biomolecules) with the different pieces stemming, for example, from different measurement techniques. This implies that more and more data appear that consist of two or more data arrays that have a shared mode. An integrative analysis of such coupled data should be based on a simultaneous analysis of all data arrays. In this respect, the family of simultaneous component methods (e.g., SUM-PCA, unrestricted PCovR, MFA, STATIS, and SCA-P) is a natural choice. Yet, different simultaneous component methods may lead to quite different results.

The last 25 years have shown a steady increase in attention for the Bayes factor as a tool for hypothesis evaluation and model selection. The present review highlights the potential of the Bayes factor in psychological research. We discuss six types of applications: Bayesian evaluation of point null, interval, and informative hypotheses, Bayesian evidence synthesis, Bayesian variable selection and model averaging, and Bayesian evaluation of cognitive models. We elaborate what each application entails, give illustrative examples, and provide an overview of key references and software with links to other applications. The article is concluded with a discussion of the opportunities and pitfalls of Bayes factor applications and a sketch of corresponding future research lines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Interaction effects are very common in the psychological literature. However, interaction effects are typically very small and often fail to replicate. In this study, we conducted a simulation comparing the generalizability and estimability of two linear regression models: one correctly specified to account for interaction effects and one misspecified including simple effects only. We manipulated noise levels, predictor variable correlations, and different sets of regression weights, resulting in 9216 different conditions. From each dataset, we drew 1000 samples of N = 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000, resulting in a total of 55,296,000 analyses for each model. Our results show that misspecification can drastically bias regression estimates, sometimes leading to zero or reversed simple effects. Furthermore, we found that when models are generalized to the entire population, the difference between the explained variance in the sample and in the population is often smaller for the misspecified model than for the correctly specified model. However, the comparison between models shows that the correctly specified model explains the data at the population level better overall. These results emphasize the importance of theory in modeling choices and show that it is important to provide a rationale for why interactions are included or excluded in an analysis.