Different JASP versions giving different results

Comments

• EJ

  September 8

  Yes, doubling and halving is a fair strategy.

  Not sure why BSEM would differ, other than updates in the underlying R package (I will ask Julius to check)

  EJ
• Michael_Jasper

  September 28

  @EJ Was there any word from Julius RE: the above?
• julius

  September 28

  Apologies, I was on holiday and this one slipped through.

  How did you run a BSEM model in JASP, using JAGS? Because the SEM module does not have the functionality. If you used JAGS, I dont know if anything changed, someone else is responsible for that module.

  Julius
• Michael_Jasper

  September 28

  Model has no latent variables.

  Constructed using the Bayesian Process module of JASP version 0.19.1.0, with interrelations (all specified as “Direct” within JASP).

  All BSEM options in JASP left as default.
• julius

  September 28

  Ah cool. Unfortunately, that is also not my module. It could be Maltes. Let me ask him.
• Michael_Jasper

  September 30

  @julius Any news?
• julius

  October 5 edited October 5

  He is not responding, sorry.
• CrewedUp

  October 5

  Hi Julius. I have a similar problem with different versions of JASP displaying different results. In a basic t-test, an older version of JASP will display Shapiro-Wilk Test results for each of the 2 x DVs that have two groups. However, on the new JASP, it does not show the two groups, and just shows one group. Please can you advise?
• EJ

  October 5

  Hi CrewedUp,

  Can you make a separate issue for this problem? Ideally with a screenshot and/or an example data set. This is of course a key analysis so if this does not work somehow this gets us into hotfix territory quickly.

  EJ
• mluken

  October 6

  Hi, apologies for the late response. Does your model contain moderators/interactions? After 19.2, interactions are mean-centered by default which was not the case in previous versions. We pinned the version of blavaan to 0.5.2, so it's unlikely that changes there are the reason. Could you otherwise provide more details about the model you are estimating?

  Cheers,

  Malte
• Michael_Jasper

  October 6

  All the processes are "Direct". There is a box to the right of the box where the "Direct" is set, which from memory has options such as moderator, etc. and this was left blank.

  Could the mean-centering you speak of be the reason with this fact pattern? Or it is irrelevant since that box was left blank?
• mluken

  October 7

  I don't think so because all paths are direct and thus the dropdown Process Variable does not apply. Do you have missing data in your variables?

  You could also check whether the ticked checkboxes under Residual Covariances are the same (under the path specification; you can also see that in the output).

  Otherwise, it might be related to the under-the-hood estimation in Stan, but I need to dig deeper into this.
• husainyahya

  October 26 edited October 26