Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Supported by

EJ

About

Username
EJ
Joined
Visits
340
Last Active
Roles
Member, Administrator, Moderator
Thanked
41

Comments

  • Since your code is based on the BayesFactor package, and Richard knows more about change scores than I do, I've forwarded your question to him (sorry for the tardy response, just had kid #2, makes it difficult to keep up) E.J.
  • Dear Kimberly, Sorry for the tardy reply. Looking at the analysis of effects, the data *increase* the prior inclusion probability from 0.263 to 0.750, for an inclusion BF of 3.8; this is mild evidence in favor of Factor 2. So that's not exactly what…
  • Dear Gabriel, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will look into it and keep you posted! Cheers, E.J.
  • Easiest: "default prior used by the BayesFactor package (details, ref), as implemented in JASP" Cheers, E.J.
  • Dear C, Thanks for the post. This seems like a feature request/bug report issue. It would be great if you could post this issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). It's the most ef…
  • Hi winwinwin, The implementation of the Bayesian ANOVA was lagging a little bit behind. The upcoming version will fix this! (courtesy of Don van den Bergh) Cheers, E.J.
  • Dear cludowici, This is a tricky one for me to answer, as I am mostly working with JASP, and Richard has reservations to model-averaging. But I'll sign him in nonetheless, maybe he can at least speak to the general setup of the analysis. Cheers, E.…
  • Hi Ronen, This is a really interesting issue. I think you should also be uncomfortable with the frequentist results, probably. But what seems to be going on here is model misspecification, on more than one level (the sphericity and the random effect…
  • I'll ask the expert, Erik-Jan! (yes, almost the same first name)
  • Dear Uhandoko, There is a whole literature on how to predict exactly. In general, I would say you want the uncertainty surrounding your point prediction, so you'd want to take the distributions for the beta's into account (rather than just focusing …
  • Yes. See http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2016/LyEtAl2016JMP.pdf for details and equations. We use this fact in our "Summary Stats" module, which takes t and N to produce a comprehensive Bayesian analysis. E.J.
  • Yes. Johnny has developed and implemented it. I'll ask him about the current status as far as the JASP implementation is concerned (the paper is at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06941) E.J.
  • The next version is only weeks away Cheers, E.J.
  • Hi mrvallejo, I'll ask Johnny (who has done most of the frequentist ANOVA work). It seems to me that what the ANOVA model assumes is normality of the residuals, but Johnny will know best. Cheers, E.J.
  • Hi Uhandoko, We are finishing up a tutorial paper on this. I have asked the first author to send you a draft. Quickly though: If you tick "compare to best model", the models will be arrange in decreasing order of predictive performance. If you want…
  • Hi Martin, I'll ask the expert in our team. We are nearing a new version, so it would be great to see this fixed (if it is a bug). Cheers, E.J.
  • Hi danke147, You can get the 95% credible interval if you click on "prior and posterior plot". I agree it's not optimal though. Ideally we report this in a table, and allow the user to set the %. I'll make a GitHub issue for this. Cheers, E.J.
  • Hi Max, I'll direct your question to our meta-analysis expert. Just for my own education: what exactly do you mean with "dependency"? Cheers, E.J.
  • Let me ask those in the know... E.J.
  • I'll attend our team to this. Cheers, E.J.
  • Also note that the null model and the factor1-only model are both doing very poorly. So here it would be more informative to look at the inclusion BF for factor 1, which also takes into account more plausible models. As you can see though, the inclu…
  • Oh, I forgot: Joris is on safari, so let's hope he returns in one piece to answer your question E.J.
  • Hi Francesca For these kinds of technical issues I usually recommend our GitHub page, but it's interesting and so I'll give a preliminary response here. First, I think we don't want to make this too easy, as tossing away data is a decision that r…
  • Hi Tanto, We can help you out but our programming team will probably need some more information. In order to help you effectively please post the issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-repo…
  • Dear jploenneke, * "I am unaware of how to add in an informed prior (not centered on zero) to a paired t-test in R." I'll ask Quentin whether he has R code available (based on https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02479.pdf). Not sure whether Richard has …
  • I've asked around but will do some with more emphasis now. Sorry for the tardiness
  • Yes, the uncorrected BF needs to be multiplied by the prior odds to give the posterior odds. The correction for multiplicity is in the prior odds. As an aside, Tim's thesis is now on PsycArXiv: https://psyarxiv.com/s56mk/ Tim will do a blog post…
  • No, but thanks for reminding me! I'll see whether I can get that project back on track E.J.
  • Hi Stats We are working on some radical panel redesign that should make the analysis of interest much easier to find. I am not sure about the ordering, but perhaps that could work. You could suggest it on our GitHub page (for details see https://…
    in Reorder output Comment by EJ February 10
  • Hi Amsa, Thanks for reporting this! I think you forgot to attach the screenshot. Also, if order to detect whether there is a bug, and then fix it, it would be really great if you could report this on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp…