EJ
About
- Username
- EJ
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,559
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator, Moderator
Comments
-
Yes there are plans :-) But it can't hurt to learn R! E.J.
-
I believe that there's a R package by Raftery that could be helpful (forgot the name though). Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Alasdair, This is not implemented yet! It is on the list though. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Kristel, Sebastiaan, As I was about to answer your post, I realized a similar issue can up earlier in the forum. Here's my previous answer, slightly edited: "As far as I am concerned, t-test as usually what researchers want to know if they…
-
Hi Leah, These nonparametric tests are currently undergoing development. Johnny van Doorn, a PhD student in the JASP group, has submitted one paper (on Bayesian Kendall's tau) and is working on another. I'll see whether we can put the paper on ArXi…
-
Yes, this is weird. The export function has gone. This is unintentional, and we'll add it back in asap. Thanks for attending us to this. Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Guha, We only have JASP working for Ubuntu Linux. If you look on the GitHub issues list you can see our previous (failed) attempts to get it to work on another Linux version (I forgot the name). Right now we've decided to focus our efforts on ad…
-
Yes, data-editing is one of the major jobs on the JASP to-do list. E.J.
-
OK, after talking to Richard it is now clear to me. Consider a situation with factors A and B. BTW, a specific example is always appreciated -- note that you can upload annotated .jasp files to the OSF and everybody can view the output. Anyway, con…
-
Hi R_A, thanks for that question. It has me scratching my head. Perhaps Richard knows more. Let me look into this and get back to you. Cheers. E.J.
-
Hi Lotje, This is not yet possible, but I will add it to the to-do list (we have been asked about this before) Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Matti, About contingency tables: the interpretation of the prior concentration is the main suggestion for improvement in the review process (it has gotten "minor revision" at BRM). So we'll work on that. You can think of "a" …
-
Hi Pieter, Entering prior odds is something you can do easily yourself; multiplying them with the Bayes factor gives the posterior odds. If you want H0 to be a distribution, then you'll have to look at some of Richard's work on interval Bayes facto…
-
Hi Pieter, 1. For the parameter under test (such as effect size), H0 specifies a point (e.g., delta=0), not a distribution. So under H0 we have a spike at 0, both as a prior and as a posterior. 2. Therefore, the prior and the posterior you see in th…
-
Here we go: 1. "H0: score =< 6.4 H1: score > 6.4" This is the classical test. I have always considered it illogical, for the following reason. We have the two-sided test that compares H0: score = 6.4 against H1: score \neq 6.4. Now w…
-
Yes, the svg format was high on our list at one point. I am not sure why we didn't do this already. Let me check GitHub...nope, could not find it -- I added it as a feature request. Cheers, E.J.
-
Well I strongly agree, of course :-) We are working on a manual, videos, and a course book; I hope these may be useful to you when they come out (might take a while still). E.J.
-
Hi Pieter, I can't speak for Richard but I'll do it anyway :-) What I think Richard meant by "preferred" is "receives the most support from the observed data" or perhaps he meant "preferred if the prior odds are equal"…
-
Well, you'd have to use some sort of graphical editor. Right now the plots were constructed to look well by default, but the current functionality to change that default is still rudimentary or lacking. I feel the plots are an essential feature and …
-
Gallistel writes "To decide which of two hypotheses is more likely given an experimental result, we consider the ratios of their likelihoods." The issue is how much emphasis to place on "given an experimental result". If you inte…
-
Well yes, the BF equals the posterior odds under equal prior odds. But the reviewer was not saying this or implying it; from what I understood, the reviewer was trying to convince the authors that the theoretically correct interpretation of the BF i…
-
Hi Sebastiaan, Statements 1 and 2 are not identical. They can be numerically the same but only if the models are equally plausible a priori. Consider for instance ESP. In a given experiment, the data may be 10 times more likely under H1 (there is E…
-
Hi Senne, You were correct, and so is M above. It is the reviewer who has misunderstood. Cheers, EJ
-
Hi M, You can view the effect of the Beta* prior widths by trying out a few values and ticking the plot option to view the results. Basically, the standard beta distribution is defined for a parameter ranging from 0 to 1 (check out Wikipedia for an…
-
Hi M, Right now JASP does not do truncation on the beta prior. However, you can take the results and add the truncation after the fact. Here is how it works. JASP gives you the Bayes factor BF10 of a H1 model versus H0. You can then use a "tric…
-
Hi Arni, In our modeling, the main effect is included whenever a specific factor appears in the interaction. This adheres tp the principle of marginality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_marginality) and it is considered good modeling pr…
-
Hi Bryan, Ah, BayesMed...I will leave that one up to Michele! :-) Cheers, E.J.
-
Hi Marieke, I think it might take three months or so before this functionality is in. I will take it up with those responsible today. Note: the Verhagen paper does have R code, and so should the other replication BF papers we did (one on correlati…
-
In my opinion, you have an independent multinomial. Participants are divided in two conditions, and the interest is in the differences in rate. We will provide more articles, tutorials, and books in the future! Cheers, E.J.
-
That's awesome!! We'll look into making these available for the next release as well. E.J.