Linde et al. (2021) compared the "two one-sided tests" the "highest density interval-region of practical equivalence", and the "interval Bayes factor" approaches to establishing equivalence in terms of power and Type I error rate using typical decision thresholds. They found that the interval Bayes factor approach exhibited a higher power but also a higher Type I error rate than the other approaches. In response, Campbell and Gustafson (2022) showed that the performances of the three approaches can approximate one another when they are calibrated to have the same Type I error rate. In this article, we argue that these results have little bearing on how these approaches are used in practice; a concrete example is used to highlight this important point. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

等价检验的实际意义：回复 Campbell 和 Gustafson (2022)。


林德等人。 （2021）比较了“两个单方面测试”“实际等效的最高密度区间区域”和“区间贝叶斯因子”方法，以使用典型的决策阈值在功效和第一类错误率方面建立等效性。他们发现，与其他方法相比，区间贝叶斯因子方法表现出更高的功效，但 I 类错误率也更高。作为回应，Campbell 和 Gustafson（2022）表明，当三种方法被校准为具有相同的 I 类错误率时，它们的性能可以彼此接近。在本文中，我们认为这些结果对于如何在实践中使用这些方法几乎没有影响；用一个具体的例子来强调这一点。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。