EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,557
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
That is really strange! We would love to understand why this happens. Is this for the current version, 0.18.1? If so, please post an issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). This …
-
Dear Roald, This may be a bug that we have already fixed. Please post such reports on out GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) as this will bring you in direct contact with the programming …
-
Another (Bayesian) approach is to use the bain module -- Herbert Hoijtink's methods explicitly take into account a combination of equality and inequality constraints. EJ
-
Also: The discrepancy is not glaring; the BF indicates anecdotal evidence, whereas the p-value is near .03, which is not that compelling The inclusion BF is based on taking all models into account, which is fundamentally different from the frequenti…
-
The mediation code is based on lavaan (so SEM), see the help file. So if you build your mediation model in SEM you should get the same result as when you use the mediation analysis. Under "options" in the mediation analysis there is a tick…
-
I guess if you analyze 10 variables you can check multivariate normality -- or if you have a partial correlation where addition of the nuisance variables gives more than two variables in your analysis. EJ
-
Hi Janet, Could you make an issue on the JASP GitHub page? This will brung you in direct contact with the programmers. For details see "How to Request a Feature or Report a Bug in JASP", https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-re…
-
The posthoc BF01, U yields 2.804*10^-4, so below 1, which means evidence in favor of H1. So BF10,U= 1/ 2.804*10^-4 = 3566.334 in favor of their being a difference. EJ
-
Hmm I am not sure we store the labels in the .csv file. A good question for the JASP GitHub page -- maybe we should also allow saving the data as an Rdata frame for instance. For details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-b…
-
I haven't seen this error before, but I do know this is an issue for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) -- this will bring you in direct contact with the programming team. This forum …
-
I'd like to add that there are no hard rules in statistics. There are strong recommendations at best :-) EJ
-
I haven't looked at those but I would say: inspect the data for outliers, consider transformations, and assess whether the violation is large enough to matter. Perhaps the bootstrap methodology could be of assistance as well. Cheers, E.J.
-
This would be a bug report for our GitHub page, see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/ for details. Cheers, E.J.
-
I suspect some of the packages just compute everything in logs first, and only at the very end produce a BF rather than a log BF. EJ
-
Hi IamAnna, I doubt we have this. Would be a good feature request on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). But perhaps the R console option also works -- I'll ask the team. EJ
-
This has to do with the parametrization of the models. I believe the that in the t-test the prior is on the difference between the two means, whereas in the ANOVA it is on the difference to the grand mean. You can confirm by conducting both a t-test…
-
I've asked our expert. In general, I prefer to do a Bayesian analysis in one step; that is, include the weighting and the meta-analysis simultaneously. But the two-step approach (weighting first, then Bayesian model) may be a reasonable approximatio…
-
Ah, so this is t=-4.747, and that matches with the BF10. So the problem, it seems, is that in our Bayesian post-hoc test we average across all the other factors and levels, and this is not what the frequentist test does. I'll see whether the team ha…
-
So suppose you take all of the "visual" data points, and compare it to all of the "motor" data points, collapsing across all other factors -- for that t-test, what is t and n?
-
This is a little puzzling, because the uncorrected BF ought to be just a t-test BF, and that particular t-value would not give such a huge BF (but something anecdotal in favor of H0). I've asked the team.
-
Do you have a raincloud plot of the data, showing the effect?
-
First of all, you need a column that indicates the group assignment, for instance "group". If you have this column in your data set, it should show up under "Density plots"; you can then select it and drag it to "Separate de…
-
Yes the data would be good, but screenshots of the relevant tables would be good too. Did you use a recent version of JASP? We updated the model specification a year ago, see for instance https://jasp-stats.org/2022/07/29/bayesian-repeated-measures-…
-
hmm I don't think the blog post happened...but it would just have summarized the paper E.J.
-
Awesome! EJ
-
I don't think so. Perhaps it is also available somewhere else, I'll ask the team.
-
In the Distributions module -> Normal -> assess fit.
-
Yes.
-
Well, I think there is moderate evidence in favor of including this predictor in the regression equation. The R2 value for the A-only model is not really relevant for this. And the beta coefficient is not only very small, it is negative as well; you…
-
In the top table, the result from the bottom row means that the model with A alone fairs relatively poorly. However, what matters is the change from prior to posterior probability for all models that include vs exclude A, and this yields an inclusio…