EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,016
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
Can you give a concrete example? (If it is not easy with JASP right now it would be a good feature request for our GitHub page; for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
What, we wrote that?! It is not correct, in the sense that it mistakes the BF for a posterior odds (in other words, if M1 is deeply implausible a priori it may not be the most likely model; but perhaps this was clear from context). About your quest…
-
I've asked the experts. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Paul, The prior that JASP allows is centered on a value of rho=0. Now you could do a one-sided test (allowing only positive correlations; this might be implied by the theory), and you can change the prior width. However, you cannot presently cent…
-
No I don't think it will matter much (I do personally prefer the median though :-)) EJ
-
I'll ask the experts EJ
-
I've asked the experts! Cheers, E.J.
-
What do you mean with "both models"? Usually we offer the opportunity to check for violations in all analyses we have -- if we don't you can suggest that we add this by posting on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/201…
-
Dear lemakru, The more complex model (H1) will always have a higher R2 than the simple model. But the R2 indicates the best-possible, cherry-picked fit, whereas the BF is based on a comparison of predictive performance. EJ
-
I'll forward this to our experts. Cheers, E.J.
-
Dear Shefali, This is really more of an issue for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). But I can tell you that Nominal categories can never be changed to numerical categories (the link…
-
Please post it on GitHub for the team to fix! Cheers, E.J.
-
I'm not an expert on the topic, but it seems to me that if you have non-stationary time series data, you need to use a time series model as your base --perhaps a state-space model?-- and then model the exogeneous factors on top of that...JASP does h…
-
I am sorry to hear this, the installation should not give you this much trouble. The programming team would be happy to help you out, but in order to do so efficiently it is best if you post the issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp…
-
Hi Chris, I think this is an issue for our programming team, in which case it is more efficient if you post it on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) Cheers, E.J.
-
You can find the equations that transform the sufficient statistics to what you like online. We do have a "Summary stats" module but it is based on a Bayesian analysis. EJ
-
Well the posterior odds would be the ratio of the posterior model probabilities (values in the "p(M|data)" column). I personally think that probabilities are a little easier to grasp than odds (although odds are useful for convenient updat…
-
Dear lemakuru, I think that in order to test the moderation, the focus is on the interaction term (e.g., https://jasp-stats.org/2020/03/12/mediation-and-moderation-analysis-in-jasp/) There are various model comparisons that are relevant here (e.g., …
-
So you'd like the posterior median and 95% CI for the differences between the three groups, right? If you click "Estimates" you'll find the posterior means and 95% credible intervals -- is the problem that you would like to report the medi…
-
If it is just two files then I would just use copy-paste. A generic solution does not exist in JASP (yet). Would be a good feature request.
-
The error message means that there is a problem in estimating the parameters; somehow the model is overparameterized and there is no unique solution. Could you share the data, or some anonymized version of it? Cheers, E.J.
-
Agreed in general; some of our analyses (for regression and ANOVA) do present posterior model probabilities though. But perhaps we ought to do this for t-tests as well. I guess we are still prioritizing adding more functionality at the moment... EJ
-
Hi Chris, Hmm that's strange. I'll contact our network expert. Cheers, E.J.
-
Dear JLeborgne, Adding a robustness check for these more complex tests is definitely a good idea -- we just haven't gotten round to it yet. In the mean time, what I suggest is pragmatic: just halving and doubling the default value. Cheers, E.J.
-
Sorry, and you've been good too! The signed installs are available on https://github.com/jasp-stats/jasp-desktop/releases/tag/v0.18.2.beta we did not want to do a full release because the programming team is on a holiday. I'll do a blog post today (…
-
Definitely, very useful, thanks for adding it! Just wanted to put my thoughts out there. That being said, it seems to be a popular test. EJ
-
I think this ought to go under regression -> linear regression -> statistics -> residuals. I am not sure how much it adds over what we already offer in terms of residual tests though. EJ
-
Thanks. I am not sure about the quality of the test though, but I have to look into it more. EJ
-
Instructions on how you can become a tester: https://jasp-stats.org/manual-for-external-testers/
-
Definitely before Christmas, and definitely with the conditional process models! We are nearing the end of the testing phase now... :-) EJ