While Bayesian methodology is increasingly favored in behavioral research for its clear probabilistic inference and model structure, its widespread acceptance as a standard meta-analysis approach remains limited. Although some conventional Bayesian hierarchical models are frequently used for analysis, their performance has not been thoroughly examined. This study evaluates two commonly used Bayesian models for meta-analysis of standardized mean difference and identifies significant issues with these models. In response, we introduce a new Bayesian model equipped with novel features that address existing model concerns and a broader limitation of the current Bayesian meta-analysis. Furthermore, we introduce a simple computational approach to construct simultaneous credible intervals for the summary effect and between-study heterogeneity, based on their joint posterior samples. This fully captures the joint uncertainty in these parameters, a task that is challenging or impractical with frequentist models. Through simulation studies rooted in a joint Bayesian/frequentist paradigm, we compare our model's performance against existing ones under conditions that mirror realistic research scenarios. The results reveal that our new model outperforms others and shows enhanced statistical properties. We also demonstrate the practicality of our models using real-world examples, highlighting how our approach strengthens the robustness of inferences regarding the summary effect.

Spurred by recent writings regarding statistical pragmatism, we propose a simple, practical approach to introducing students to a new style of statistical thinking that models nature through the lens of data-generating processes, not populations.

Providing a much-needed bridge between elementary statistics courses and advanced research methods courses, Understanding Advanced Statistical Methods helps students grasp the fundamental assumptions and machinery behind sophisticated statistical topics, such as logistic regression, maximum likelihood, bootstrapping, nonparametrics, and Bayesian me

This article shows how interfactor correlation is affected by error correlations. Theoretical and practical justifications for error correlations are given, and a new equivalence class of models is presented to explain the relationship between interfactor correlation and error correlations. The class allows simple, parsimonious modeling of error correlations via prespecifying reliabilities. Within the class, the correlation between latent factors can be as high as 1.0, and as low as the correlation between certain component scores. The models are indistinguishable in terms of parameter parsimony, identifiability, and fit statistics, implying that interfactor correlation is not identifiable within the class. The existence of the class is problematic for psychometric measurement, because estimates of interfactor correlation form the foundation of much of the literature.