EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,598
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
Well, this is interesting. Let me start by stressing that this is the result that probability theory gives us. So given the prior and the likelihood, these are the unique results. Our job here is to understand why it all makes sense (because probabi…
-
Hi Jeff, Right now, JASP does not offer mediation and moderation analysis. It is on the agenda of course. Cheers, E.J.
-
Ah, yes, well spotted. We'll take it into consideration! As an aside, the examples will be expanded and organized better in one of the next versions. E.J.
-
Yes, that's correct.
-
Hi peterose1, JASP does not allow "pure" interaction effects (meaning without the constituent main effects). This is the principle of marginality, discussed in part II available at https://osf.io/ahhdr/ Cheers, E.J.
-
Well I am of two minds here. On the one hand I want those Bayesian assumption tests. On the other hand, the purpose of an assumption test is not to test the presence of a violation -- rather, you want to estimate its impact. So an estimation approac…
-
Hi Niklas, Re. (1): Yes. Re. (2): Good points. No the best model is not convincing. And I am not sure that it is correct to assess the three-way interaction by comparing the most complex model to the model that lacks the three-way interaction (beca…
-
Hi Anna, Thanks for sending the file. What has happened is that you conducted a one-sided analysis for the July test, probably by mistake. The first one made sense (Hornsund > Edinburgh), but the second one (Edinburgh > Hornsund) is so strong…
-
Hi Anna, I think you have to make this public, or else invite me (EJ.Wagenmakers@gmail.com) Cheers, E.J.
-
Ah, I see. Good to know. Well we are almost there, but it looks like version 1 is probably going to take until Christmas. If it makes your institution happy you can point them to me, and I'll explain that the "beta" nature of JASP pertains…
-
Hi Bryan, Yes, that must be frustrating. Our programmers are looking into it. In general, if you have any questions or concerns of a more technical nature, you are better off posting your message on our GitHub page -- this way you can correspond wi…
-
This is difficult to tell without the data. Maybe a screenshot helps. E.J.
-
Hi MP, In the BANOVA, no contrast are implemented (yet). But yeah, entering a file containing only those two groups' results is the way to go. Actually, we are working on Bayesian post hoc pairwise comparisons too...but if your a priori interest was…
-
Hi Jeremy, Currently, you can only edit the data file and execute the JASP analyses on the edited file. So the Select Cases trick won't work, and instead you'd really have to remove the cases you don't want to include in the analysis. We do realize…
-
Hi Anna, No, pizza plots aren't available for ANOVA. I guess the reason is that there are so many models, and so many Bayes factors. There is such a thing as too much pizza. With respect to the priors, you raise an important point. If you have a s…
-
The binomial test allows a subjective prior (through the parameters of the Beta distribution). In the next versions we add a subjective prior for the t-tests, and possibly the correlation. The ANOVA requires more work though. Honestly, I would simpl…
-
The R code issue has been on our agenda from the start. Unfortunately, our programming team at the time resisted my frequent urging to implement this, but it is still on the agenda. In terms of the percentage of users that actually want this, I thin…
-
Hi Inge, My advice is to use Bayesian statistics -- if you have few observations you will probably be told that the evidence is inconclusive (but that does not need to be the case). Also, the posterior distributions will just be wide. E.J.
-
Yes. We generally use the BayesFactor package for t-tests, ANOVA, and regression. E.J.
-
Can you upload an example? The new release will have label editing, but not (yet) on the y-axis, I think. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Metaphid, My guess is that JASP is trying to be smart, and it assesses from the absolute size of the numbers what the number of decimal points should be. Maybe the number of decimal points should be an option. I'll add it to the to-do list. Che…
-
Sometimes the BF is determined by numerical techniques (MCMC sampling, or numerical integration). These techniques come with uncertainty, and this is what the %error indicates. As a rule of thumb, I would start to worry when it exceeds about 5%, and…
-
Hi Tom, Well, that's one way of doing it. You could also do comparisons to the simpler models, for instance instead of (a) you could compare "Group" to "Group x set size". If you want to average across all such possibilities you…
-
Yes, that is exactly my preferred way of reporting the results! E.J.
-
Sure but this makes sense, right? If you look at the mode, it should be near zero. But the median is the 50% cut-off point, so creating a one-sided test makes a big difference. So it is not unrealistically high. It is just that with a non-symmetric …
-
Hi Moritz, I would apply the two-sided test and then toss out all the negative values for d. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Jasper (great name, BTW) This is really a question for Richard Morey. You could try to private-message him perhaps. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Dan, Well, "valid" indicates the number of valid responses (usually just the number of rows), and "missing" indicates the number of missing responses :-) (if some rows do not contain values in the relevant column). We are wo…
-
Hi Tom, a) Yes there is a clear effect of group. No transitivity calculation needed b & c) for the interaction effects, I would note that the best supported model is the one that has both group and the group * set size interaction. BTW, I don't…
-
I used an example data set and it used 4 decimal precision. Can you send a screenshot? E.J.