EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,530
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
Last post on this for a while, promise. check out https://robjhyndman.com/hyndsight/arima-trends/index.html. This seems a reasonable idea. EJ
-
sorry for the deluge of shorts posts --- I keep discovering new issues. The Mann-Kendall test assumes that the observations are independent, which I don't think is the case (there is autocorrelation, even apart from any trend). So right now I am thi…
-
This looks like the standard test: https://help.healthycities.org/hc/en-us/articles/233420187-Mann-Kendall-test-for-trend-overview It feels similar to doing a linear regression on the ranks, but perhaps it is different E.J.
-
Oh that KPSS test is actually not what you need, because it tests whether the series is stationary around a trend
-
Also, the JASP Time Series module offers a test of trend stationarity. From the help file: "Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin: Computes a KPSS test where the null assumes that the time-series is level or trend stationary. The p-values are inter…
-
Well the team was recently expanded with Mahdi Kamalabad (https://www.uu.nl/staff/MShafieeKamalabad), and he was hoping to do just this. I will bring this issue to his attention EJ
-
A more informative nonparametric test could be to transform the sizes into ranks. You then do the linear regression on the ranks (for instance). Transforming to ranks would probably be a good way to start. Note that I am making this up as I go along…
-
I am not sure what nonparametric test would be best. But I think the simplest nonparametric test would be to code your data as "larger" or "smaller" than the previous, and then do a binomial test! EJ
-
Hi Per, We are aware of this issue. What is the problem with GitHub? (this is really very much a GitHub issue) EJ
-
Hi Mila, I think this topic is understudied. Pragmatically, I might suggest either doubling or halving the default setting... Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Paolo85, Feature requests can be issued through our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) where it would be best to be as specific as possible -- JASP calls 475 R packages :-) Cheers, E.J.
-
Dear JamieB, Hmm I don't think this is possible now, but it would be an interesting feature request for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) Cheers, E.J.
-
I've attended our expert to your post! EJ
-
Hi jaspuser23, The primary Bayesian correction for multiplicity is in the prior model probability (see for instance https://psyarxiv.com/s56mk). If the tests are not independent that does complicate matters, and in general it is always best to accou…
-
This was addressed on GitHub, I believe? I saw Bruno respond....
-
¡Hola! ¿Has visto los archivos de ayuda? (puedes hacer clic en los círculos azules con el signo de exclamación) ¿Puedes indicar exactamente dónde está la funcionalidad de interés? (¡tenemos mucho!)
-
Hi Laura, Sorry about the delay. I've forwarded this to our expert. I will note that the "Order Restricted Hypotheses" is something you might want to check out. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Prisca, I am not sure what the best way is to correct z-scores for age, but I am sure you are not the first one to confront this problem (so I would look online and in the literature to see what the experts recommend). And for the clusters, my st…
-
Why do you consider these results to be different? Both methods indicate support for the full model over the null model (and any other model, in fact). Note that the principle of marginality dictates that if the interaction is part of the model, so …
-
Hi Berenike, We have seen this issue a few times. This is really something for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). I will ask the team whether this issue has been resolved. Cheers, E.…
-
This just looks like a bug. If you enter the variables individually you should see different results. I will try to see if I can reproduce this...no, it works fine for me, I get different results. Please post the issue on our GitHub page, and outlin…
-
Ah. Well I think your best bet is to contact the programmers by posting the issue on our GitHub page! Cheers, E.J.
-
This may be relevant: https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/8920/please-help-failed-to-open-a-file-in-jasp#latest
-
We're eager to solve this, but this is an issue for our GitHub page, where you'll be in direct contact with our programming team (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). I'll attend them to the Forum post…
-
Answered at https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/8879/opposite-results-for-contingency-table-one-sided-with-ordinal-data#latest
-
Hi Mirjam, I prefer to use the Bayesian A/B test in this case (see for instance https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.9278). This is a comparison of two proportions. I suspect it has labeled your "failures" as successes. If you e…
-
Hmm it seems to me that you would be much better off recoding those zeros as NAs. Presently you cannot define missing values on a column-by-column basis. It might be a reasonable feature request for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stat…
-
Hi Hunter, The BF of 6 is for full model against the *null* model. If your interest is specifically in the group factor, you would do best to consider all models that include the group factor and compare them against all models without that factor. …
-
I've asked our expert, sorry about the delay E.J.
-
That looks more like a bug, strange. I'll bring this to the attention of your expert. EJ