Howdy, Stranger!

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

Supported by

Bayesian RM ANOVA: Interpretation of interaction model and BFs that are "anecdotal"

edited May 2016 in JASP & BayesFactor

Hi there,

I just started working with JASP and have some problems with interpreting the output of the Bayesian RM ANOVA. Any help would be greatly appreciated :)

In my current experiment I tested two groups of participants. I'm using the BF to check whether there is a difference between two of my conditions. If there is no difference I would like to collapse across these two conditions.
I did a Bayesian RM Anova with Group (Group 1 & 2) as between factor and Condition (Level A & B) as within factor. Now I think I should look at the interaction model (right?). I read in one of the previous posts (http://www.cogsci.nl/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/1716/interpretation-of-bayes-repeated-mesures-anova/p1) that I would have to divide the BF10 for the model including the two main effects by the BF10 for the model including the main effects and the interaction to isolate the interaction and see what it adds to the model. For my data that results in 2.1. Now I'm a bit confused as to what that means? It looks like including any of the factors does not really add anything to explain the data (all BFs < 1). How can the value for the isolated interaction be 2? Also none of the BFs is under 0.3 and therefore it's only "anecdotal" evidence for the null. I'm not sure what to make of that? Can I collapse across my conditions or not? Or is it just up to me whether I do?

Thanks for any help in advance. I really appreciate it!

Comments

  • edited 5:14PM

    http://img.cogsci.nl/uploads/573975dde1460.jpg

    Sorry, my image got lost. Click link above :) Thanks!

  • EJEJ
    edited 5:14PM

    Hi Lori,

    First, let's assume that looking at the interaction term is a good idea. Then yes, the BF is 2.1 against including the interaction (over and above the two main effects model). You can get the same result more easily if you use the model specification option and assign both main effects as "nuisance": this will make them part of the null model and you don't need to do a computation yourself.

    Secondly, I am not sure whether that interaction term tells you what you want to know. Suppose that on average, group A scores 11 and 15 in the two conditions, and group B scores 111 and 115. There is no interaction, but do you really want to collapse across the two conditions? Probably not.

    Instead, it seems to me that you might want to decide whether or not to add condition as a covariate. For concreteness, suppose you want to test ADHD children against controls. Each child does a task with letters or with numbers, and you want to see whether you can collapse across those, because they are not really what you care about. The same question arises when you have counterbalanced some factor, for instance across two halves of the experiment. Should one include the counterbalancing factor in the analysis? It depends -- if there is no effect then you are better off without that factor, because you pay for it with one degree of freedom; if there is an effect then you are better off including it. At least this is my quick assessment; other people may have different ideas.

    Basically, I am saying that the assessment: "do the groups differ in the effect of condition?" (the interaction term) does not tell you whether you can collapse across condition.

    Cheers,
    E.J.

  • edited 5:14PM

    Thanks for the quick reply EJ. That makes a lot of sense! I don't fully understand why the value 2.1 is evidence against including the interaction?

    Thanks for the comment on the usefulness of the interaction term here. I'm am wondering whether that makes sense at all now too ;)
    The issue is that I actually have four levels in Condition. But level A & B are both control conditions so I just wanted to average across them to get a single baseline. I first did a normal RM Anova and p is insignificant for these two levels. But as I'm aware that accepting the null is not possible I wanted to move on to bayes. So for the concrete example you gave, if I had letters, digits, colours, and shapes and I'm only interested in colours and shapes and digits and letters are controls can I include these as covariates?

    Thanks so much for this detailed explanation - this was very helpful!

    Cheers

  • EJEJ
    edited 5:14PM

    Hi Lori,

    About the 2.1 being evidence against the interaction: the table indicated that the two-main effects model didn't do so well against the null model. But adding the interaction didn't help. In fact, it made things even worse: the model with main effects and interaction was 2.1 times as bad as the model with only the main effects.

    About your other question: ah, the design is now a bit more complicated than I had thought. I am just not 100% sure here. My comment about the covariate was just one idea. Regardless, I think you would need to report the analysis without collapsing anyway. So my suggestion is to report the analysis you had originally planned (without collapsing) and then present the other one as well. If they lead to very different results I would be cautious in my conclusions.

    Cheers,
    E.J.

  • edited 5:14PM

    Great! That makes sense. Thanks so much for your advice, this was very helpful :)

Sign In or Register to comment.

agen judi bola , sportbook, casino, togel, number game, singapore, tangkas, basket, slot, poker, dominoqq, agen bola. Semua permainan bisa dimainkan hanya dengan 1 ID. minimal deposit 50.000 ,- bonus cashback hingga 10% , diskon togel hingga 66% bisa bermain di android dan IOS kapanpun dan dimana pun. poker , bandarq , aduq, domino qq , dominobet. Semua permainan bisa dimainkan hanya dengan 1 ID. minimal deposit 10.000 ,- bonus turnover 0.5% dan bonus referral 20%. Bonus - bonus yang dihadirkan bisa terbilang cukup tinggi dan memuaskan, anda hanya perlu memasang pada situs yang memberikan bursa pasaran terbaik yaitu http://45.77.173.118/ Bola168. Situs penyedia segala jenis permainan poker online kini semakin banyak ditemukan di Internet, salah satunya TahunQQ merupakan situs Agen Judi Domino66 Dan BandarQ Terpercaya yang mampu memberikan banyak provit bagi bettornya. Permainan Yang Di Sediakan Dewi365 Juga sangat banyak Dan menarik dan Peluang untuk memenangkan Taruhan Judi online ini juga sangat mudah . Mainkan Segera Taruhan Sportbook anda bersama Agen Judi Bola Bersama Dewi365 Kemenangan Anda Berapa pun akan Terbayarkan. Tersedia 9 macam permainan seru yang bisa kamu mainkan hanya di dalam 1 ID saja. Permainan seru yang tersedia seperti Poker, Domino QQ Dan juga BandarQ Online. Semuanya tersedia lengkap hanya di ABGQQ. Situs ABGQQ sangat mudah dimenangkan, kamu juga akan mendapatkan mega bonus dan setiap pemain berhak mendapatkan cashback mingguan. ABGQQ juga telah diakui sebagai Bandar Domino Online yang menjamin sistem FAIR PLAY disetiap permainan yang bisa dimainkan dengan deposit minimal hanya Rp.25.000. DEWI365 adalah Bandar Judi Bola Terpercaya & resmi dan terpercaya di indonesia. Situs judi bola ini menyediakan fasilitas bagi anda untuk dapat bermain memainkan permainan judi bola. Didalam situs ini memiliki berbagai permainan taruhan bola terlengkap seperti Sbobet, yang membuat DEWI365 menjadi situs judi bola terbaik dan terpercaya di Indonesia. Tentunya sebagai situs yang bertugas sebagai Bandar Poker Online pastinya akan berusaha untuk menjaga semua informasi dan keamanan yang terdapat di POKERQQ13. Kotakqq adalah situs Judi Poker Online Terpercayayang menyediakan 9 jenis permainan sakong online, dominoqq, domino99, bandarq, bandar ceme, aduq, poker online, bandar poker, balak66, perang baccarat, dan capsa susun. Dengan minimal deposit withdraw 15.000 Anda sudah bisa memainkan semua permaina pkv games di situs kami. Jackpot besar,Win rate tinggi, Fair play, PKV Games