Following an extensive simulation study comparing the operating characteristics of three different procedures used for establishing equivalence (the frequentist "TOST," the Bayesian "HDI-ROPE," and the Bayes factor interval null procedure), Linde et al. (2021) conclude with the recommendation that "researchers rely more on the Bayes factor interval null approach for quantifying evidence for equivalence" (p. 1). We redo the simulation study of Linde et al. (2021) in its entirety but with the different procedures calibrated to have the same predetermined maximum Type I error rate. Our results suggest that, when calibrated in this way, the Bayes factor, HDI-ROPE, and frequentist equivalence tests all have similar-almost exactly-Type II error rates. In general any advocating for frequentist testing as better or worse than Bayesian testing in terms of empirical findings seems dubious at best. If one decides on which underlying principle to subscribe to in tackling a given problem, then the method follows naturally. Bearing in mind that each procedure can be reverse-engineered from the others (at least approximately), trying to use empirical performance to argue for 1 approach over another seems like tilting at windmills. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

贝叶斯因子、HDI-ROPE 和频率主义等价测试都可以进行逆向工程——几乎完全一致——彼此：回复 Linde 等人。 （2021）。


经过广泛的模拟研究，比较了用于建立等价性的三种不同程序（频率论“TOST”、贝叶斯“HDI-ROPE”和贝叶斯因子间隔零程序）的操作特性，Linde 等人。 (2021) 最后建议“研究人员更多地依赖贝叶斯因子区间零值方法来量化等效性证据”（第 1 页）。我们重做Linde等人的模拟研究。 (2021) 的全部内容，但使用不同的程序进行校准，以具有相同的预定最大 I 类错误率。我们的结果表明，当以这种方式校准时，贝叶斯因子、HDI-ROPE 和频率等价检验都具有相似的、几乎完全相同的 II 类错误率。一般来说，就实证结果而言，任何主张频率主义测试比贝叶斯测试更好或更差的说法充其量都是值得怀疑的。如果一个人决定在解决给定问题时遵循哪种基本原则，那么该方法自然就会遵循。请记住，每个过程都可以与其他过程进行逆向工程（至少近似），尝试使用经验性能来论证一种方法优于另一种方法似乎就像在风车上倾斜。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。