EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,578
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
I think this is an issue for our GitHub page - for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/
-
Yes we are working on analysis-specific filters
-
Planned for a future release. You can request/upvote it on our GitHub page. It should work using the BayesFactor package in R.
-
Or something as described here: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/egydq
-
Difficult to say. Can you share the data or show a screenshot?
-
I'll bring this to the attention of our experts!
-
It could be a feature request on our GitHub page: in the Preferences, we can add an option "Show data preview".
-
Even though I have not found the need to adjust anything, it strikes me as very useful...why would you want it turned off?
-
Can you DM me with your preferred name and email address so we can add you? EJ (EJ.Wagenmakers@gmail.com)
-
Well what frequentist models do also depends on whether you use Type I, II, or III sums of squares. But anyway, I don't think that "across matched models" gives you the best summary of the full model table. EJ
-
Ah yes. I did come across this issue before. As a JASP team member suggested to me, "complex tabulate analysis, in the style of SAS proc tabulate (https://documentation.sas.com/doc/en/pgmsascdc/v_072/proc/n1ql5xnu0k3kdtn11gwa5hc7u435.htm) and …
-
I'll bring this to the attention of our expert.
-
Can you explain the purpose of the module a bit more? JASP already produces what I consider to be publication-ready tables. EJ
-
Can you share the data, kwellstein?
-
My bad, this happens by default and it's mentioned in the model specification!
-
Yes, but they were explicitly added to the null model, which should have happened automatically
-
Dear Kwellstein, This result does look anomalous and I don't really get it immediately. I do see that you added a number of terms to the null model. I am particularly suspicious about the terms "subject" and "random slopes". I wi…
-
There are multiple issues here. First off, predictions are usually made using regression models, not factorial designs. However, there is no principled reason why this would be the case. I think you can do this in our Quality Control module under DO…
-
[I thought I addressed this, but apparently I didn't, so here goes] This is a good question, and I've attended our expert to this! EJ
-
Hi Mila, I have attended the experts to this! Sorry about the huge delay in responding EJ
-
Continued at https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/10077/jaspmoduletemplate-install#latest
-
OK: For the model comparison table, the results are easier to interpret with "best model on top" When you look at the model comparison table, you see that we need the main effects, but it is not clear whether we need the interaction When y…
-
I'll attend our expert to this! EJ
-
Sounds good. As a general rule it is a good idea to report the priors; however, for some models this can become overly technical, and in that case I would simply point to the literature that proposes the default priors and state that this is what yo…
-
Hello rvgardt, This is really more of an issue for our GitHub page. I have attended Pablo to your question. We also run a "Module developers" Mattermost channel, btw. We have recently updated our workflows re. modules. I will leave it up t…
-
Hi Alan, I think this should be possible, and I have attended our expert to this. The issue can also be raised on our GitHub page (https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
Repeated measures ANOVA, then add covariates? I am not sure what you mean with the difference between "continuous predictors" vs. "control variables" -- could you elaborate? EJ
-
Can you provide some more details? We use R under the hood, so it may be that the underlying R packages change. We also have unit tests, so I am not sure what happened -- I will attend our expert to this. As an aside, this is more of a topic for our…
-
We have picked this issue up on GitHub and are looking into it. Probably a precision setting, or starting values. For completeness: https://github.com/jasp-stats/jasp-issues/issues/4142