EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,557
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
But you can run them sequentially in different tabs, right? So you test for predictor set B, with set A marked as nuisance; then you do "duplicate analysis", add set B as nuisance to set A (so A+B is nuisance now), and test for added set C…
-
You mean Bayesian logistic regression. We will implement what is in the BAS R package from Merlise Clyde. E.J.
-
I think you might be looking for Bayesian logistic regression (where the level of depressive symptoms can be a predictor), which will be in one of our next versions... Cheers, E.J.
-
I'll forward your question to the team. Note that this is really a question for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) Cheers, E.J.
-
It is scheduled for the next version.
-
With the posterior distribution from the Mann-Whitney in hand, it should be possible to construct an equivalence test from that. But we have not yet implemented this. You could check whether it matters by executing the Mann-Whitney and comparing it …
-
Hmm that is strange indeed. The analysis probaly does not take into account that the scale is ordinal, but still, this is a counterintuitive outcome. I'll discuss this with some others. We may just not believe you and ask for the data :-) E.J.
-
I am certain this is explained in the background documentation (e.g., the papers of Sacha Epskamp on this topic, hopefully referred to at the end of the help file). OK, a quick search leads to http://sachaepskamp.com/semPlot where there is a link to…
-
I'll ask our experts
-
This question is more appropriate for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). This way you'll be in direct contact with the programming team and the issue can be assigned to the team memb…
-
This was a bug in 0.17, and the reason why we created a hotfix, which is 0.17.1. So it should work in the latest version. E.J.
-
Hi Jess, I am doing the best I can, but the main author is pretty busy. About the code: you can edit it (and see the changes in the GUI), you can copy it and paste it in the JASP R console (which reproduces the analysis, a little like SPSS syntax I…
-
This is really more of a question for our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/). But I don't think JASP works on an iPad (yet).
-
I think this is best posted on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-bug-jasp/) Cheers, E.J.
-
I'll ask the team whether the latest release has fixed the bug. I recall this also being posted on our GutHub page but I can't find the issue. Thanks for looking into this.
-
Hi JP21, We are working on a guide. There should be a preprint soon. R code: as of JASP 0.17, we now have R code for the analyses that are not part of a separate module. I will write a post about this, but you can see it in action on the blog post …
-
A quick fix for the RM ANOVA should be out next week! (should solve this problem I believe)
-
" should I just use the original alpha level (0.05) as the threshold to compare with the pbonf column results and decide the result" Yes. You can see that, for instance, the .008 p-value corresponds to a .080 p-bonf value. E.J.
-
This depends on whether you wish to correct for multiplicity, and what method of multiplicity-correction you prefer, given the research context at hand. Usually Bonferonni is considered very strict. Your best bet is to consult the background literat…
-
Hi Sam, This should be mentioned in the abtest package R documentation. I do think we ought to include this information in the JASP help file as well. If you make a GitHub feature request that would be most welcome! (https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/2…
-
Hi Nick This looks like an issue for our GitHub page. Could you include screenshots that showcase the problem? Perhaps it is a bug and then the programmers would be keen to fix it. For details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-re…
-
:-) Yes, when in doubt about what the subscripts mean, I always look at the change from prior to posterior model probability. That shows massive evidence in favor of H1, in line with the classical result. E.J.
-
I've forwarded this to our experts E.J.
-
I've forwarded this to our experts E.J.
-
Dear Maria, I'm sorry to hear this. When you have questions like these it is best to involve the JASP programmers. You can reach them by posting the issue on our GitHub page (for details see https://jasp-stats.org/2018/03/29/request-feature-report-b…
-
In general the weighting of cases (also helpful for survey work) needs to be implemented still. A poke on our GitHub page would be welcome. E.J.
-
Let's say you get a BF10 = 3. Under equal prior probabilities, this means a posterior probability of 75% for H1 vs H0. In a simulation for what you can expect from a replication, you would first sample either H1 (with probability .75) or H0 (with pr…
-
I suspect they are in alphabetical order. An ugly hack would be to call the conditions "Apost" and "Bpre"; if this plot them in the right order you can save the plot as a pdf and then edit out the A and B. (let us know whether th…
-
(that being said, it seems to me that in order to assess collinearity a regression approach is the first thing I'd think of) EJ
-
Hi Alejandro, Maybe you can be a bit more specific; perhaps including a mock data set and some screenshots would help... Cheers, E.J.