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
419
Last Active
September 20
Roles
Member, Administrator, Moderator
Thanked
65
Activity
Thanked
65
Discussions
Comments
814
[{"insert":"Dear BrittJane [sorry for the tardy reply -- I've responded elsewhere as well but I'll do this here too for completeness],\nThe model with the highest R2 is *not* the model that predicts …
Thanked by
1
BrittJane
[{"insert":"Hi Mark,\nWhen you tick \"Posterior Summary\", you can select \"Best model\" -- this should then present the posterior summaries only for the model with 4 predictors.\nCheers,\nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
DrMark
[{"insert":"I think it's fine -- I am not a Bain expert so it is a little hard for me to grasp that table, but the standard JASP ANOVA seems fine.\nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
gvleioras
[{"insert":"Yes, they operate under different assumptions, so will give different answers. In general, Bain is particularly well suited for testing order-restrictions. \nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
gvleioras
[{"insert":"I'll pass this comment along\n"}]
Thanked by
2
gvleioras
MSB
[{"insert":"Dear Marius,\nWe can help you out but our programming team will probably need some more information.\u00a0In order to help you effectively please post the issue on our GitHub page\u00a0(f…
Thanked by
1
Marius
[{"insert":"I'll pass this one on to Richard...\n"}]
Thanked by
1
robpetrosino
[{"insert":"Hi BrittJane,\nYes, it is in the works! We are waiting for some other software developments to pull the trigger on this one. When we do implement mediation, this will likely be based on t…
Thanked by
1
BrittJane
[{"insert":"Hi eniseg2,\nThanks for the positive comments about the paper!\nBayesian assumptions are generally the same as the frequentist ones. \nYes, the DV for the stereogram example is log-transf…
Thanked by
1
eniseg2
[{"insert":"Soon...(this year for sure)\n"}]
Thanked by
1
eniseg2
[{"insert":"Hi Jan,\nThe effect is massive, so it is a plausible result;"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"The ANOVA routine in JASP is taken from the BayesFactor package. …
Thanked by
1
Flaihai
[{"insert":"Yes, we are well aware of the issue. Currently we use the R defaults, but the user needs more control over these. The reason why we haven't acted yet is that we are aiming for a more comp…
Thanked by
1
ataylor4
[{"insert":"Dear Agata,\nWe 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 Merlis…
Thanked by
1
agata_
[{"insert":"This is just a wild guess, but I think that BEST uses a t-likelihood, not a normal likelihood. This *may* explain the difference\n"}]
Thanked by
1
Robert_Voogdgeert
[{"insert":"BF01 is just 1\/BF10, so the same information is presented\n"}]
Thanked by
1
hyesungh
[{"insert":"Looks good. I'd be consistent and use \"Bayes factors\" instead of \"Bayes Factors\".\nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
andersony3k
[{"insert":"Also, when in doubt, you can compare output from R to that of JASP.\nCheers,\nE.J.\n"}]
Thanked by
1
gaspar
[{"insert":"Dear August,\nThe 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, th…
Thanked by
1
eniseg2
[{"insert":"I'll attend him to your post\n"}]
Thanked by
1
MSB
[{"insert":":-) The real thing is a direct comparison of variances. We have something really cool under development here (there will be a blog post and a preprint once it's done), but there is also r…
Thanked by
1
Izymil
[{"insert":"Maybe that is a good approximation (in some circumstances...haven't checked it out) but it's not the real thing (i.e., computing a ratio of marginal likelihoods), and we need the real thi…
Thanked by
1
Izymil
[{"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
So the prior odds have been adjusted according to the Westfall formula. If you multiply this by the uncorrected "regular" BF you will get the posterior odds, which you can interpret as a "corrected" …
Thanked by
1
martinangelusp
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
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
1
eniseg2
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 Eniseg2,
The next version of JASP will have the option to put the best model on top as a comparison model, which will make all of this easier. With respect to your text, my comments i…
Thanked by
1
eniseg2
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