andersony3k
About
- Username
- andersony3k
- Joined
- Visits
- 816
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
If indeed "all dens are different," then I think it would be appropriate to simply compute either Kendall's tau-b or Spearman's rho to assess the rank correlation between year and den height.
-
Hi. In addition to removing the 1st row, there are some basic ideas you need to keep in mind. Any "scale" (i.e., "continuous") variable needs to consist of numbers. However, your age values aren't numbers (numbers don't have hyph…
-
In JASP, there's no option to output uncorrected (i.e., Fishers LSD) p values for post hoc tests. However, you can do contrasts, with each contrast encoding one condition as +1 (the other conditions as -1, and the rest as 0). I believe the results w…
-
juehoe When you say you want to "add zero as a missing value," I assume that there are currently zeros throughout the dataset, but that for a few columns, all of the zeros should be treated as missing values. If that's the case, then for e…
-
You have to hover then click-and drag the little triangle to change the plot's size and dimensions. (Note: It will revert back to the default upon closing and then re-opening the jasp file.) https://forum.cogsci.nl/uploads/805/IQD8HDLO0YLD.png
-
Yes, it's a two-way ANOVA. More specifically, it's a two by three ANOVA. Here's the explicit plot of the main effect of Type of Breach: https://forum.cogsci.nl/uploads/304/CQ1WN4FVQ1MF.png If you want to a graph that shows the significant main effec…
-
There was a significant main effect of 'Type of Breach' on the mean number of affected individuals ( p = .006). Logically, it's possible that there could have been a significant interaction. In other words, it could have been the case that the chang…
-
In what sense are the data "normalized"? The QQ plot and the distribution plots show wildly non-normal data. I also don't know what you mean by "the p-value is greater than .05." There are three p values--only two of which are g…
-
Hi. For a beginner, I think the ANOVA you've done is good enough, acknowledging that you have pretty substantial violation of equal variance and of normality. A more advanced analyst would attempt to reduce the severity of the violations--perhaps by…
-
Repeated-measures ANOVA assesses whether there are significant differences among means (with the variation. Doesn't intraclass correlation address a very different question?
-
I don't know if this plays a role, but a basic issue I've always had with jasp (for Windows) is that it doesn't launch with the window maximized, and some elements of the jasp display aren't visible unless the Window is maximized.
-
If you were to do an ANOVA with 'Number of Individuals Affected' as the dependent variable, with two factors consisting of 'Type of Breach' (5 levels) and 'Covered Entity Type' (3 levels), you would need at least two observations within each of the …
-
Hi. I can only reiterate what I've already indicated above: (1) I don't agree that "The total number of data breach occurrences is 2969 and is regarded as the population . . ." Rather, I believe it is the researcher's choice as to whether …
-
This was is still not clear to me since your whole data set is either a population or a sample, not both. If you want to treat your whole data set as a sample, then you would conduct the ANOVA on the entire set of data that you have. I see no reason…
-
I think the problem is that your statistical hypotheses use a rather loose shorthand language and are not properly formulated within the framework of classical or even some more modern forms of statistical analysis. Technically speaking, statistica…
-
No. That's not at all what I'm saying the entire set of data that you have needs to be considered a sample and not a population. It is not meaningful or appropriate to then take a smaller random sample from what is already conceptualized as a random…
-
Typically, the phrase "are by chance" is presumed to mean "are due to random sampling error, such that o relationship would be present of the entire population were examined." It's hard for me to understand how you could possess …
-
Ok. In my judgment, it's not the preferred option.
-
-
Such an analysis would be appropriate. But you research question suggests that you also need to get down to a set of two-cell chi square analysis. Each would be called a goodness-of-fit rather than a contingency analysis. One analysis would compare …
-
The only reason to use a sample is as a means to infer characteristics of a population that cannot be examined directly. But you've indicated that you have the whole population. If that's the case, conducting any kind of significance test on a subse…
-
A proportion test is restricted to 2 X 2 out of logical necessity. When the table size is 2 X 2, "contingency" is translatable to "differences between two proportions. That's not the case for tables larger than 2 X 2. For those large …
-
If you really have the "whole population," such that you're not trying treat the data you have as a random sample, and not trying to draw inferences about a larger set (a population), then descriptive statistics (means, medians, totals, et…
-
While there could be an error in the Bayesian repeated measures routine, here's another possibility: It's known that JASP's "Bayesian repeated measures" routine doesn't actually perform a repeated measures analysis. Instead, it performs a …
-
By the way, why is the directory called "JAPS" and not JASP?
-
gvt. Again . . . Just because the data/residuals are significantly non-normal and the variances are significantly unequal doesn't necessarily mean the violations are large enough to matter. Some judgment is required to make those determinations…
-
I believe you've already discussed this question and gotten some answers in other threads and forums.
-
fyi: https://forum.jamovi.org/viewtopic.php?t=2731
-
I wonder, what is the result of a frequentist repeated measures ANOVA on the same data? Does it still produce an incongruence between main effect and post hoc?
-
Could there be any rows with missing data that are excluded from the ANOVA but (incorrectly) included in the post hoc test?