EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,530
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
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.
-
Not yet, but the upcoming version (expected this month) will have a first implementation of this. E.J.
-
That should be mentioned in the documentation. And you should be able to change this in the GUI...anyway, a check is to use a one-factor RM ANOVA with two levels and see whether you get the same result. E.J.
-
Sorry to have missed this earlier. The post was repeated later and I've answered it there. E.J.
-
Hi MikJ, Thanks for sticking around, and sorry I missed this. Will bring it to the attention of the group. Some quick comments: The table is probably easier to interpret if you put "best model on top". It may be even easier to interpret if…
-
Hi Ravi, I don't think we have this yet, but I'll ask. Cheers, E.J.
-
I'll pass this on to our experts Cheers, E.J.
-
I'll ask our expert! Cheers, E.J.
-
At the moment the Bayesian mixed model functionality does only parameter estimation, not null hypothesis testing Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Marijn, I'll ask our expert. This seems to be information that ought to be reported in the help file... Cheers, E.J.