EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,559
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
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
-
Some other people also reported crashes for the version you mention. The preferred solution is to upgrade to the present version, which is 0.96. EJ
-
+1 thanks
-
It may have to do with the fact that there is text in there as well. I will bring this to the attention of our expert.
-
We wanted to fix this in the new version, but it appears that the changes somehow did not make it through. We're working on a quick fix to solve this. So it is an issue on our end (unfortunately :-/)
-
Final phase now
-
Two routes I can see: Create a copy of the old .jasp file and adjust the analyses in the new .jasp file. Stay within the old .jasp file, select "duplicate this analysis", and then edit the options to produce a new analysis. Caveat: filters…
-
I am asking our expert... EJ
-
Right now you cannot plot values onto the graph. This is something we could add to our graph editor. Please pass on your requirements! I am curious to see what Prism can do that we cannot, at the moment. EJ
-
+1 :-)
-
Maybe. Best to check our GitHub page and present the issue there (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
I recall that one hacky solution is to add half of an error for those participants that do not make any. The royal road is Bayesian. EJ
-
Now in the testing phase
-
Working on it (really hard too)