EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,557
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
I've asked the team for support. EJ
-
Thanks, this is now taken to https://github.com/jasp-stats/jasp-issues/issues/2603 EJ
-
Hi Lena, This output does look strange: two estimates of 0 (with standard error 0), and two other estimates that both equal 0.027 (with the same standard error, 0.015). I am not sure what you mean with "selectivity", but this issue stands …
-
Dear Johan, The figure is not so relevant since it maps the empirical function from effect size to Bayes factors. For your effect size question I've notified the team... Cheers, E.J.
-
Did you check out the plots offered under ANOVA? EJ
-
I don't think we have that, but you could issue a feature request using our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) Cheers, E.J.
-
Dear MLyons36, This is a little vague. What exactly is your question? Cheers, E.J.
-
Does it work when you do a two-sided test? This looks more like a bug that would be useful to take to our GitHub page (https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
I don't think so, but I recall this being a feature request on our GitHub page -- you could find it and give it a bump perhaps. See https://jasp-stats.org/feature-requests-bug-reports/ Cheers, E.J.
-
I've forwarded this to Richard! EJ
-
I think that you might try a procedure such as Bain (also a JASP module); in general, the work of Herbert Hoijtink, Irene Klugkist, Joris Mulder et al. has focused on these sorts of constraints across conditions. EJ
-
...but you might want to ask advice from the lavaan people, because I suspect it is a lavaan issue and not a JASP issue EJ
-
I suspect there is an error in the lavaan code, or in the way it connects to your data. It is difficult to judge without more information about the code and the data! Cheers, E.J.
-
Are you sure you want to test against a value of zero? The plot fails because the result is so extreme, but the table still ought to provide the information, right? EJ
-
Hi Michael, Good question. The "obvious" answer would be some sort of hierarchical modeling to account for the similarity. It would be a good grant proposal :-) But it seems to me that you would have to model the dependence explicitly. Ch…
-
There are 67, shown on our world map in blue: https://jasp-stats.org/world-map/
-
Difficult to tell without seeing the data. Can you share the anonymized set, or a subset that showcases the problem? I would immediately think that the reason for the strange behavior is that the plot is not really appropriate, as it is not a histog…
-
You can edit all sorts of aspects of the plot with our plot editor. See the first gif in this post: https://jasp-stats.org/2021/09/21/introducing-jasp-0-15-new-languages-basic-plot-editing-raincloud-plots-and-more/ (so you open the small black tria…
-
Excellent, then we take the discussion there: https://github.com/jasp-stats/jasp-issues/issues/2552
-
This is really strange. I'll attend the team to this. It might be more efficient to handle this through GitHub though...
-
Dear chantelanuit, Good question! We have an extensive blog post on PROCESS that is ready to go. It is scheduled to go live next week. Cheers, E.J.
-
Not right now (you can use other programs for that) but it would be a good feature request for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
Can you give a concrete example? (If it is not easy with JASP right now it would be a good feature request for our GitHub page; for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) EJ
-
What, we wrote that?! It is not correct, in the sense that it mistakes the BF for a posterior odds (in other words, if M1 is deeply implausible a priori it may not be the most likely model; but perhaps this was clear from context). About your quest…
-
I've asked the experts. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Paul, The prior that JASP allows is centered on a value of rho=0. Now you could do a one-sided test (allowing only positive correlations; this might be implied by the theory), and you can change the prior width. However, you cannot presently cent…
-
No I don't think it will matter much (I do personally prefer the median though :-)) EJ
-
I'll ask the experts EJ
-
I've asked the experts! Cheers, E.J.