Toggle navigation
Discussions
Documentation
OpenSesame
JASP
PyGaze
Expyriment
Mousetrap
DataMatrix
JATOS
PsychoPy
Learn Python
Blog
Sign In
Go!
EJ
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In
Register
Supported by
Back to Profile
EJ
About
Username
EJ
Joined
October 2015
Visits
326
Last Active
April 21
Roles
Member, Administrator, Moderator
Thanked
40
Activity
Thanked
40
Discussions
Comments
720
[{"insert":"Hi Martin,\nI'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). \nCheers,\nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
Mcube78
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
Thanked by
1
Tanto
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 P…
Thanked by
1
MAgoJ
No, but thanks for reminding me! I'll see whether I can get that project back on track
E.J.
Thanked by
1
elienbellon
Hi Boo,
If the data are exchangeable between pilot, Exp1, and Exp2 (a big if!), then you can just label all of that data as "condition A" and compare it to "condition B" (for an unbala…
Thanked by
1
booradley
Dear AnnalenaB,
Thanks for this interesting and very relevant question. I believe the Bayesian directional test makes complete sense. Suppose we start by testing the point H0 (the skep…
Thanked by
1
annalenaB
Hi Arran,
This is reasonable. Also, this distribution is close to several others that we have elicited from experts. For instance, it is similar to the "Oosterwijk prior" (see the info…
Thanked by
1
arran_reader
Hi Boo,
I gather that you used the pilot data for the BF t-test for Experiment 1. If you use the updating method, then you ought to use the knowledge after Experiment 1 for the analysi…
Thanked by
1
booradley
I'll attend Richard Morey to your question.
E.J.
Thanked by
1
LZ1
Dear rohanp16,
This does look like a bug. I'll report it for you on our GitHub page (https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/)
Cheers,
E…
Thanked by
1
rohanp16
yeah, taking that interrelationship into account would be best but I am not sure it is worth the trouble
E.J.
Thanked by
1
Ajestudillo
Hmm. It seems that you can use three separate rank-based correlations between questionnaire score and number of fixations?
Thanked by
1
Ajestudillo
Hi Boo
Sorry for my tardy reply. So you have used your pilot data to come up with a more informed prior -- note: this does assume that you are confident that H1 holds in your pilot dat…
Thanked by
1
booradley
Great question (and sorry for the tardy reply). We are currently working on this! It is not in JASP yet.
Cheers,
E.J.
Thanked by
1
elienbellon
Yes, that's fine. *But* the effect is not small! So I would push back here. You have a medium effect size with a medium-to-large sample size. The result of that combination is displayed in the prior-…
Thanked by
1
HannaG
http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2015/NuijtenEtAl2015.pdf
Thanked by
1
MAgoJ
I'll attend some other team members to this post
E.J.
Thanked by
1
normanp
I am not sure what goes wrong...
I have tried this with 0.9.0.1 and the latest 0.9.1.0, and it works like a charm, for both the Bayesian as well as the classical analysis.
Thanked by
1
normanp
Hi Boo,
About the mean and variance: The data-generating process should be the same: it's OK for the sample estimates to fluctuate.
With respect to multiple replications…
Thanked by
1
booradley
Yes, that's correct, but note that for this approach to work you'd have to assume that other parameters (means and variances) are the same across experiments. If that's not the case, you could simply…
Thanked by
1
booradley
Dear Boo,
Are you using a t-test? If so, you could take a look at the following two papers:
1. Informed t-test (https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02479)
2. Replication Bayes fac…
Thanked by
1
booradley
I don't have any ideas straight off the bat, but this is a typical issue we'd like to see posted on our GitHub page. This way the programming team can assist you effectively, and hopefully make life …
Thanked by
1
4x1eg
Yeah, well, with these kinds of nonstandard data I would recommend a more complex analysis. First of all, your data are binomial on the subject level, as you mention. Second, the effect of delay wil…
Thanked by
1
Aram
Sorry about that. Here it is:
http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2017/RouderEtAl2017ANOVAPM.pdf
Cheers,
E.J.
Thanked by
1
Aram
Yes, brms is the ticket. However, the package places less emphasis on testing, and setting the default priors well (for testing) can take some tinkering. It is in the works for JASP, but not in there…
Thanked by
2
Aram
oreo_jo
Hi N_C,
OK, so let's take variable 1. Going by the p=.114 value, you are interested in the time*group interaction. If you look at the Bayesian ANOVA, you can see that the model with bo…
Thanked by
1
N_C
Dear Eniseg2,
Nothing is wrong (although...see below). If you test whether two groups are different, and all you see are data from one of the groups, the BF should remain exactly 1. I …
Thanked by
1
eniseg2
Hi Meerkat,
This is a "BayesFactor"-specific question, so I can't answer it confidently. It appears to me that you have several different (crossed) factors, so a linear mixed model wou…
Thanked by
1
Meerkat
Hi Marios
Unfortunately this is not yet possible. We are aware of the limitation and we are working on a comprehensive solution that allows all plots to be edited. But it may take a wh…
Thanked by
1
mariosav
If you send me an Email I can forward you the internship report by a student, Tim de Jong, who worked on this.
E.J.
Thanked by
1
kosugitti
Hi Sarah,
Interesting example! Here's my take on what's going on here. Basically, there is no contradiction. Yes, the credible interval just overlaps with zero, but that does not mean …
Thanked by
1
SarahA
Thanks MSB, I forgot this for a moment
E.J.
Thanked by
1
MSB
Ah, this is something that Tim did for us.
Tim is on a trip around the world and may rejoin us, but that will take a few more months. Of course our JASP/R code online should demonstrate how t…
Thanked by
1
m_linde_18
BF_m quantifies the change from prior odds to posterior odds.
Here I'd select "compare to best model" and then BF_01 for display, and you'll see how many times better the "openness" only mode…
Thanked by
2
MAgoJ
SarahA
Awesome!
Thanked by
1
MSB
Hi Elien,
This topic occasionally pops up on this forum, so searching for the relevant terms will bring up some relevant posts. As you suggest, the BF inclusion is the change from prior …
Thanked by
1
elienbellon
Hi MMA,
Well, the posterior distribution is not exactly a Gaussian (it is close, but for low-N it will have thicker tails). But from the median (=the mean if the distribution is Gaussian…
Thanked by
1
MAgoJ
Hi Hanna,
This is a great question. Some brief thoughts:
1. With BFs in between 1 and 3 you have not learned much **with respect to the specific model-comparison question you were …
Thanked by
1
HannaG