Howdy, Stranger!

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

Supported by

Reporting the results of my Bayesian RM ANOVA in my paper

edited June 11 in JASP & BayesFactor

Hello, I'm trying to report my results, any tips are appreciated :)

Methods: I have a group composed of young adults (YA) and older adults (OA) who have a trained on a task. Their performance (DTc) is the dependent variable as measured pre- and post-training (variable of Session, with levels Pre- & post-)  

Reporting:

A Bayesian Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed that the data are 392.34 (BF01) times more likely under the model that includes the main effect of SESSION, the main effect of Age, and the interaction between Session and Age as predictors than under the null model. The analysis of effects revealed that the data is extremely likely (BFincl = 144.25) to occur under models that only include a main effect of Session, strongly likely (BFincl = 19.83) to occur under models that only include the Session x Age interaction, and moderately likely (BFincl = 7.97) to occur under models that only include the main effect of AGE. Furthermore, post-hoc analysis revealed strong evidence (i.e., posterior odds of 28.36) that DTc differs between Pre- & Post-training, but weak evidence (i.e., posterior odds of 1.5) that DTc between OA & YA differed. The model averaged posterior distributions reveal that DTc decreased from pre- to post-training.

Results:



Comments

  • Dear Kindred,

    The links to the png's are broken, so I cannot see those. Without visual support, here is some comment on the text:


    1. "A Bayesian Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed that the data are 392.34 (BF01) times more likely under the model that includes the main effect of SESSION, the main effect of Age, and the interaction between Session and Age as predictors than under the null model."

    You could report this (would it not be "BF10", since you report evidence in favor of H1 over H0), but the null model without any predictors is rarely of interest. What I would want to know is "what is the best-supported model?"; what is the second-best supported model, and what conclusions do we draw?

    2. "The analysis of effects revealed that the data is extremely likely (BFincl = 144.25) to occur under models that only include a main effect of Session, strongly likely (BFincl = 19.83) to occur under models that only include the Session x Age interaction, and moderately likely (BFincl = 7.97) to occur under models that only include the main effect of AGE."

    This interpretation is not quite correct. In JASP, whenever an interaction is included so are the constituent main effects. So the analysis of effects does not consider "only" the interaction. The analysis of effects compares the models that include the term of interest against the models that exclude that term. But I think that with only a few models, you might be better off interpreting the main output table.

    3. "Furthermore, post-hoc analysis revealed strong evidence (i.e., posterior odds of 28.36) that DTc differs between Pre- & Post-training, but weak evidence (i.e., posterior odds of 1.5) that DTc between OA & YA differed. The model averaged posterior distributions reveal that DTc decreased from pre- to post-training."

    I find no fault with the wording, but keep in mind that I cannot see the pngs

    Cheers!

    E.J.

  • Hello,

    Thanks for the feedback!

    1. So is the best way to report the results using the BF10 and compare it to the null model?
    2. Does the analysis of effects table tell us what to look at in the post-hoc? Like if I had a bayefactor of 1 for the models that contain the interaction, does that mean that there is no point in interpreting the post hoc or the model averaged posterior distributions?

    That's bizarre, the images disappeared. I re-attached them here.



  • Hello,

    Thanks for the feedback!

    1. Are you saying that the best way to report the results is using BF10, while having the "compare to null model" box checked? If we have the best supported model, what is the use in looking at the second best supported model? Other than the fact that the data are more likely under the model including the main effects and interactions, what other conclusions can we draw?

    Here is my reworked output based on your feedback:

    Using a Bayesian RM ANOVA, the Bayes factor indicates that the data best supports the model that includes the main effect of Session, the main effect of Age, and the interaction between Session and Age as predictors (BF10 = 378.61), indicating extreme evidence for H1. The second-best model includes the main effect of Session and Age (BF10 = 42.39), indicating very strong evidence for H1. Interestingly, given that the model that includes the main effect of Age provides no evidence (BF10 = 1.11) for H1 nor H0, we conclude that the data does not support the existence or lack thereof of age differences. Indeed, post-hoc comparisons of DTc between Young Adults and Older Adults revealed posterior odds of 1.5 against the null hypothesis, thereby indicating weak evidence for the age differences. Furthermore, post-hoc comparisons of DTc between pre- and post-training revealed posterior odds of 28.36 against the null hypothesis, which indicates strong evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The model averaged posterior distributions reveal that DTc decreased from pre- to post-training. 


    It's weird the pics have disappeared. Here they are again


Sign In or Register to comment.

agen judi bola , sportbook, casino, togel, number game, singapore, tangkas, basket, slot, poker, dominoqq, agen bola. Semua permainan bisa dimainkan hanya dengan 1 ID. minimal deposit 50.000 ,- bonus cashback hingga 10% , diskon togel hingga 66% bisa bermain di android dan IOS kapanpun dan dimana pun. poker , bandarq , aduq, domino qq , dominobet. Semua permainan bisa dimainkan hanya dengan 1 ID. minimal deposit 10.000 ,- bonus turnover 0.5% dan bonus referral 20%. Bonus - bonus yang dihadirkan bisa terbilang cukup tinggi dan memuaskan, anda hanya perlu memasang pada situs yang memberikan bursa pasaran terbaik yaitu http://45.77.173.118/ Bola168. Situs penyedia segala jenis permainan poker online kini semakin banyak ditemukan di Internet, salah satunya TahunQQ merupakan situs Agen Judi Domino66 Dan BandarQ Terpercaya yang mampu memberikan banyak provit bagi bettornya. Permainan Yang Di Sediakan Dewi365 Juga sangat banyak Dan menarik dan Peluang untuk memenangkan Taruhan Judi online ini juga sangat mudah . Mainkan Segera Taruhan Sportbook anda bersama Agen Judi Bola Bersama Dewi365 Kemenangan Anda Berapa pun akan Terbayarkan. Tersedia 9 macam permainan seru yang bisa kamu mainkan hanya di dalam 1 ID saja. Permainan seru yang tersedia seperti Poker, Domino QQ Dan juga BandarQ Online. Semuanya tersedia lengkap hanya di ABGQQ. Situs ABGQQ sangat mudah dimenangkan, kamu juga akan mendapatkan mega bonus dan setiap pemain berhak mendapatkan cashback mingguan. ABGQQ juga telah diakui sebagai Bandar Domino Online yang menjamin sistem FAIR PLAY disetiap permainan yang bisa dimainkan dengan deposit minimal hanya Rp.25.000. DEWI365 adalah Bandar Judi Bola Terpercaya & resmi dan terpercaya di indonesia. Situs judi bola ini menyediakan fasilitas bagi anda untuk dapat bermain memainkan permainan judi bola. Didalam situs ini memiliki berbagai permainan taruhan bola terlengkap seperti Sbobet, yang membuat DEWI365 menjadi situs judi bola terbaik dan terpercaya di Indonesia. Tentunya sebagai situs yang bertugas sebagai Bandar Poker Online pastinya akan berusaha untuk menjaga semua informasi dan keamanan yang terdapat di POKERQQ13. Kotakqq adalah situs Judi Poker Online Terpercayayang menyediakan 9 jenis permainan sakong online, dominoqq, domino99, bandarq, bandar ceme, aduq, poker online, bandar poker, balak66, perang baccarat, dan capsa susun. Dengan minimal deposit withdraw 15.000 Anda sudah bisa memainkan semua permaina pkv games di situs kami. Jackpot besar,Win rate tinggi, Fair play, PKV Games