ABSTRACT
The Bayesian-frequentist debate typically portrays these statistical perspectives as opposing views. However, both Bayesian and frequentist statisticians have expanded their epistemological basis away from a singular focus on the null hypothesis, to a broader perspective involving the development and comparison of competing statistical/mathematical models. For frequentists, statistical developments such as structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling have facilitated this transition. For Bayesians, the Bayes factor has facilitated this transition. The Bayes factor is treated in articles within this issue of Multivariate Behavioral Research. The current presentation provides brief commentary on those articles and more extended discussion of the transition toward a modern modeling epistemology. In certain respects, Bayesians and frequentists share common goals.
Article information
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author signed a form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The author did not report any financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to the work described.
Ethical Principles: The author affirms having followed professional ethical guidelines in preparing this work. These guidelines include obtaining informed consent from human participants, maintaining ethical treatment and respect for the rights of human or animal participants, and ensuring the privacy of participants and their data, such as ensuring that individual participants cannot be identified in reported results or from publicly available original or archival data.
Funding: None.
Role of the Funders/Sponsors: None of the funders or sponsors of this research had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Acknowledgements: The author thanks the editor, Steve West, for comments on this manuscript. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone, and endorsement by the author's institution is not intended and should not be inferred.