Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Supported by

Reporting Bayesian ANOVA post hoc tests


I've running a series of Bayesian ANOVAs and have to run post hoc tests for some of the factors.

I'm a little confused with what and how I'm supposed to report the output from the post hoc table. Should I report the uncorrected BF10 or the posterior odds and how should I report these?

Would it be reasonable, for example, to say something like:

'Post hoc tests revealed very strong evidence for a difference between condition X and condition Y, BF10 = xyz.'

Can't seem to find much online in this regard so any help would be most appreciated.



  • Hi scd21,

    A useful thesis on the topic (by one of the members of the JASP team) is here:

    I would report the entire table. The uncorrected BFs are just the regular t-tests; the penalty for conducting multiple tests comes in through the prior plausibility, so the t-test Bayes factor is corrected (multiplied) by a prior odds that depends on the number of tests.



Sign In or Register to comment.