#### Howdy, Stranger!

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

Supported by

# EJ

EJ
Joined
Visits
391
Last Active
Roles
Thanked
60

• I'll pass this on, but our GitHub issue list is alive and well... E.J.
Comment by EJ July 3
• Ah, I'm not sure, but I'll pass this on E.J.
Comment by EJ July 3
• Dear Agata, We are working to make the R code more easily accessible, and we are also completing a tutorial paper. The JASP functionality is based entirely on the BAS R package by Merlise Clyde! Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ July 3
• This is just a wild guess, but I think that BEST uses a t-likelihood, not a normal likelihood. This *may* explain the difference
Comment by EJ June 30
• Hi Sarah ANOVA is the same as linear regression when "treatment" (or whatever condition label you have) is a discrete factor. But the linear regression routine does need to realize that "treatment" is factor, not a continuous nu…
Comment by EJ June 26
• We don't have Bayesian polynomial contrasts in there just yet, but it is on our list. You can push us to do this by posting the issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). E.J.
Comment by EJ June 26
• Hi Kevin, Well, we don't have that in there just yet (although I like the idea of having a measure of association that is very general) but I guess most people would use linear regression and use polynomial predictors...so include both x, x^2 as pr…
Comment by EJ June 26
• Not yet! And I would definitely turn to time series analysis. The Fourier spectrum should be particularly helpful, I think. E.J.
Comment by EJ June 26
• Your calculator takes log to mean log10 (base 10), whereas we use "log" in R, which means "ln" (the natural logarithm with base e). Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ June 25
• I've forwarded this to our team. If you'd like to follow this up it would be best to post the issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ June 25
• BF01 is just 1/BF10, so the same information is presented
Comment by EJ June 21
• If your conclusion depends crucially on whether you use Cohens's d or Hedge's g, this suggests that considerable caution is in order. But JASP provides both (I just saw we had a fix in our Hedges g -- a new JASP version comes out end up this month a…
Comment by EJ June 21
• Posted on GitHub and being worked on / implemented, I believe E.J.
Comment by EJ June 21
• Looks good. I'd be consistent and use "Bayes factors" instead of "Bayes Factors". E.J.
Comment by EJ June 21
• I'll also ask that this will be made clear in the output or the help file. E.J.
Comment by EJ June 21
• I think you've since reported this on our GitHub page and we're implementing it... E.J.
Comment by EJ June 21
• Also, when in doubt, you can compare output from R to that of JASP. Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ June 21
• There's a 2009 paper in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review by Rouder & Morey: @ARTICLE{RouderEtAl2009Ttest,  AUTHOR =    {Rouder, J. N. and Speckman, P. L. and Sun, D. and Morey, R. D. and Iverson, G.},  TITLE =    {{B}ayesian \$t\$ Tests for Accep…
Comment by EJ June 13
• Hi Joe, population effect size delta = population mu / population sd. So it's the population equivalent of Cohen's d (which is a summary based on the sample, not an inference) Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ June 12
• wrt 2: "likelihood" usually refers to something proportional to p(y|theta); so it has a technical connotation that does not match this particular context. wrt 3: Correct, with estimation there isn't a pair of hypotheses -- there is only th…
Comment by EJ June 10
• Looks very nice! I love the idea of the annotations in general. Will pass this on to the lab as a recommended way to include explanations in tutorial papers. A few suggestions for improvement: I guess you could say that the posterior under H1 is &qu…
Comment by EJ June 10
• I'd like to add that, although it is customary to center the prior distribution around the test-value, this is by no means required. In JASP, the t-tests, binomial, multinomial (next release), and AB test (next release) all allow the location of the…
Comment by EJ June 7
• Hi Chris, That's exactly right. This is called the Savage-Dickey density ratio, and it is a convenient way to "see" a Bayes factor for H0 vs H1 without needing to compute the prior predictive adequacy for H0 and H1 separately. See for inst…
Comment by EJ June 5
• yes yes Not sure; what I see from the table is that "Size" is the only factor for which the data offer support (and they do so in compelling fashion) With many factors and interactions, the inclusion ("analysis of effects") appro…
Comment by EJ June 2
• If you are interested in the interaction, you can also compare the 2-main effect model against the full model. With few models you don't always need the inclusion BF. Cheers, E.J.
Comment by EJ June 2
• Dear August, The ANOVA as borrowed from the BayesFactor package is really a linear mixed model. But in general, the same assumptions apply as they do for the frequentist version. Yes, the Bayesian approach generally allows all sorts of more flexible…
Comment by EJ June 2
• What needs to be normal is the distribution of variances across subjects, right? I don't see why that wouldn't be (approximately) normal. In your RM ANOVA, I am not sure how your ultimate test involves the variance across the x,y,z. The interaction …
Comment by EJ June 2
• Hi Richard, So far, as you indicate, JASP has focused mostly on the *evidence*, that is, the relative predictive performance for two competing hypotheses (aka the Bayes factor). The reason that we have not put in prior for the hypotheses is that the…
Comment by EJ June 2
• I have attended the relevant JASP team members to this forum entry...
Comment by EJ June 2
• I've passed this on...
Comment by EJ May 30