EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,557
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
Hi ARF, If you have many missing data you might want to look into missing data imputation. This is something that we still have to do in JASP, but R has several packages for this. I vaguely recall that data missing at random are not a problem for ou…
-
yes!
-
Your current first sentence may make a naive reader believe that the group-only model ia clearly the best, whereas the data support that model only weakly over the null model. E.J.
-
""Using a Bayesian RM ANOVA, the Bayes factor indicates that the data is best represented by the model that just included the group. " Yes but the evidence is really weak. E.J.
-
Dear Nuno, Largely fine; two remarks: " (prior probabilities of each model were equal to 0.5)" -- the BF does not depend on prior probabilities. "Additionally, post-hoc group comparisons exposed posterior odds of 20788.04, indicating …
-
Dear Akypar, I'll attend our expert to this. In general, predictive performance is always less impressive than goodness-of-fit (a Danish proverb goes "prediction is difficult, especially about the future" :-)). E.J.
-
Hi Chloe, I'll pass this on to our SEM expert but they will probably need some more detailed information... Cheers, E.J.
-
Dear lalladem, From the information you provide this seems reasonable. Of course there are many tests presented here, and this does mean you have a multiple comparisons problem (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0913-5); I did…
-
Hello Max, This code is from the BayesFactor package (I see we still have to produce a help file, but it does list the package). The key paper is by Gunel ands Dickey (also listed in the help file), and a modern version is here: https://link.springe…
-
Have you turned on "safe graphics" in the preferences? If that does not work, please post this on our GitHub page!
-
Great that it worked!
-
This is really strange. Could you attach or email the data? E.J.
-
These are a series of good suggestions -- a feature request on our GitHub page would be great! This is a very popular test so I'll bump the priority once I see the request. (could you make a single request per issue?) E.J.
-
I've tried this, and ticking "display density" changes "counts" (with numbers on the y-axis) to "density" and adds a smooth line. If this does not work for you, can you please create an issue on our Git Hub page?
-
Strange, I'll take a look. This does seem more of a bug report for our GitHub page...
-
This is very much on our radar!
-
Could you elaborate on what you mean with "questionable interpretability"?
-
(I mean, maybe we'll create one sooner than the 0.17 version)
-
No, we need to do the Mac install separately. We intend to have this functionality included in our 0.17 release (before the summer, hopefully). Maybe we'll create a Mac install separately.
-
The more complicated the test, the more involved all of this becomes. For instance, in the Pearson correlation we really have 5 parameters (correlation, plus two means and two variances). What also complicates matters is that we often conduct a test…
-
Because it is Descriptives, we use a uniform prior here. This should be clearly indicated in the help file at least; I'll make an issue on our GitHub page
-
Good to hear it's solved!
-
Maybe the new version solved the problem?!
-
Have you tried turning "safe graphics" on in preferences? If that does not fix the problem, please let our programmers know on the JASP GitHub page! Cheers, E.J.
-
Yes, I asked the team to provide an alternative color scheme
-
https://forum.cogsci.nl/uploads/946/3XVPH7Z9AN5Q.jpg So here is an example of the tile heat map in Descriptives. Basically, each tile represents a slice of the data. On top of each tile is some information. For instance, you can see that women with …
-
OK I commented on the bar charts on GitHub. Will look at the heat maps soon. E.J.
-
OK it is clear that this needs another look from me. I am not eager to do this as I recall the Gunel and Dickey paper was not easy to understand (conceptually their approach was clear, but mathematically things weren't completely spelled out) E.J.
-
Dear nbarden, Yes, this means something went wrong when saving the csv. If you open the csv in Excel or Calc, say, you have different options to open it and save it; it takes some tinkering to get it right (maybe the separator should be a comma, not…
-
Hmm I'll pass this on to our expert, but I think the results show that "Tenure" is in fact highly significant (as is also evident from the plot). If the odds ratio is indeed for a single unit (i.e., month) this does tend to cause a large e…