andersony3k
About
- Username
- andersony3k
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,202
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
If you look carefully, you'll see that there are indeed confidence-interval error-bars around the Group 1 means. They're just very narrow intervals. My guess is that they're narrow compared to Group 2 because the sample size is much larger in Group …
-
Regarding normality, a standard assumption-check is the Shapiro-Wilk test. While I'm not seeing that as an option in JASP's regression routines, you can find the test elsewhere, outside of JASP. You could put in a feature-request to have it included…
-
I can't remember the exact thread, but I was told that in JASP "repeated-measures" Bayesian ANOVA is not really repeated-measures ANOVA but is instead a linear mixed-effects model--EXCEPT that it excludes rows containing missing values, th…
-
RE: "Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test compute is the proportion of acceptance is different between A and B." It compares the proportion of acceptance between the Initial_A and the Initial_B if you setup your data file that way . .…
-
@Andy . I don't know what "confounding factors" and "generator" mean in this context. If this is referring to an analysis of variance, things should be set up as follows, with the goal being to assess main effects and interaction…
-
You do it the same way as described here https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/8559/comparing-two-proportions-within-contingency-table-for-small-sample-size#latest except that you select Frequencies, Bayesian, Contingency Tables.
-
Each of those would be "the other side of a coin." Thus, the results, above, also describe "the comparison between A-refusing versus B-accepting." (You can rearrange the data to convince yourself that that's true.)
-
Hi. Based on this clearer information, I think the analysis should be the same as what I suggested initially but the data should be coded different. The test is obtained via FREQUENCIES, CONTINGENCY TABLES. Had the expected frequencies all been at l…
-
Hi, If you mean p1, p2, p3, and p4 to be simply 3/17, 4/17, 8/17, and 2/17, respectively, then the testing of p2 vs p3 involves first leaving them as frequencies (f) rather than dividing each by 17. Thus, f1, f2, f3, and f4 equal 3, 4, 8, and 2, re…
-
A 2 X 2 contingency-table analysis compares observed cell counts to the cell counts one would expect if there were no relationship between between Variable 1 (G_cond) and Variable 2 (E_cond). A significant p value for a Chi Square test would mean th…
-
Hi. It compares two proportions, not four. A two-by-two contingency test is interpretable as a test of the difference between two proportions: The observed values will differ from the expected values only to the extent that the two proportions are …
-
https://forum.cogsci.nl/uploads/846/WPGXA0RW749M.png
-
Hi. To me, the data look like they're not the kind of data that can be statistically analyzed. It looks as though you have a sample size of just 1.0 (one person assessed on nine different measures at eight different time points). But in order to ru…
-
@joshuaseelen The file doesn't appear to be a csv file (it contains lots of semicolons, as if perhaps it consists of semi-colon separated values rather than comma-separated values). Can you post your jasp file instead?
-
@maamorim FYI. From the FAQ pertaining the the emmeans R package: "FAQs for emmeans . . . If I analyze subsets of the data separately, I get different results Estimated marginal means summarize the model that you fitted to the data – not the d…
-
@maamorim If one inspects the documentation for the emmeans package, one finds that it's quite complex. See https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/vignettes/FAQs.html In particular, it says: "[FAQ:] If I analyze subsets of the data s…
-
FYI: The notes to the post-hoc test output include: "Results are averaged over the levels of: Group, Compatibility." However, your "planned comparison simply ignores those other factors. If the 'n's are different, the difference that…
-
@PerPalmgren Note however that there's currently more consistency *within* JASP than there is within SPSS and within jamovi regarding error-term pooling in repeated-measures versus between-subject ANOVA post hoc tests. In SPSS an jamovi, the post-ho…
-
You cannot do an ANOVA on the following data set because Group B contains only one observation. For an ANOVA, each group must contain two least two observations. Group A {2.4, 2.7, 1.4, 2.5} Group B {2.8} Group C {2.3, 2.3, 1,4}
-
You have to make sure the variable is set to the scale of measurement that's appropriate to the analyis you're trying to perform. If you haven't read it already, see: https://tomfaulkenberry.github.io/JASPbook/
-
I think that if there's publication bias then the effect sizes in the published studies are inflated relative to to the effect sizes for all studies, including published and unpublished. Therefore, if you pool the data from the biased, published stu…
-
@chhhim FYI. Where in the plot editor is the user permitted to specify the aspect ratio?
-
Are you sure that checking for statistical significance of each factor and running both the Dunn and Games-Howell Post Hoc Comparisons are relevant to the question of whether there's an "interaction?"
-
I meant to write . . . Reject the null hypothesis if the interval EXcludes 5 or -5.
-
An even simpler approach: For the t test, opt to view the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two means. Reject the null hypothesis if the interval includes 5 or -5.
-
For a two-group t test, I would subtract 5 from each value in the group with the higher mean (call it Group 2), and then do a one-sided t test t assess whether the mean of the transformed Group 2 data is significantly greater than the mean of the Gr…
-
I take it you have a main effect of group but no main effect of pre/post and no interaction. Then it seems to me that you might want to know whether the mean of each group differs significantly from the mean of each of the other groups, which would …
-
For #2. Sometimes the data severely violate the assumptions of a linear model, and so the analyst would like to do a set of planned t tests (instead of fitting the data to a linear model such as an ANOVA or a Generalized Linear Model). JASP supports…
-
1. Why is non-pooling only an option for the repeated-factors and not for the between-subject factors? 2. The reason I think non-pooling is necessary is that there should be some way to conduct planned comparisons without having those comparisons be…
-
It seems to me that if researchers are to report frequentist effect sizes to go along with their Bayesian 'repeated measures' analysis, those effect sizes should not come from a frequentist repeated-measures ANOVA. Instead, they should come from a f…