andersony3k
About
- Username
- andersony3k
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,380
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
I believe that the "prior" options in JASP are not options that allow the user to specify prior odds that are different from 1/1. Instead, you should do the following . . . If (for example) Study 1 yields BF[10] = 2.3, and Study 2 (a repli…
-
My understanding is that normally you should look at the Bayes Factor from Study 1 and multiply it by 1/1 if the prior odds of the alternative versus the null hypothesis were 1/1 {50/50}. This yields the posterior odds (which is of course identical …
-
Compute the sum of 5, 9, and 10. (Answer = 24). Compute a new column, C, consisting of: 5/24; 9/24; 10/24. Compute a final column, D = A*C. Compute the sum of Column D.
-
@EmilieC I definitely would call myself a non-expert in Bayesian analysis, especially concerning complex linear models. Of course, even non-experts like myself need sometimes need to make scientific/statistical judgments that go a bit beyond our exp…
-
JASP's machine learning module supports networks with arbitrary numbers of hidden layers. (Note: A "perceptron" is a historical example of a neural net.)
-
Also, if you want to compare Bayesian RM ANOVA to something frequentist, you should compare it to a frequentist linear mixed-effects model since, I'm told, JASP's Bayesian "repeated measures ANOVA" is really a Bayesian Linear Mixed-Effects…
-
I don't know the answer to your question, but apparent inconsistencies like the one you're seeing lead me to adopt a general practice trusting simpler Bayesian analyses (e.g., t tests) more than complex ones (e.g., ANOVAs).
-
Hi. "Two-way interaction" means the same thing as "1st order interaction" (though I believe the former term is more commonly used). "Three-way interaction" means the am thing as "second order interaction." I…
-
I think your use of the term "hierarchical" has a completely different meaning than "hierarchical data" in statistics. An example of hierarchical data would be if age group could be young or old in the 40-40 condition but was re…
-
Hi. It's still ambiguous whether you have Gender factor (male; female) or a Gender Correspondence factor (different; same). I'll assume the latter. Likewise, it's not clear whether your talking about an Age Category factor (young; old) or an Age Cat…
-
I agree with pchs0114 except that if there are really only two individuals, it's not worth doing any kind of statistical test. Two is not enough to be convincing.
-
Actually, I don't think I sufficiently comprehend what your research design is. (Maybe some diagrams would help, instead of trying to describe it all in words?) Relatedly, I think the graph you included, above, would be appropriate for a design in w…
-
That's surprising to hear, since a frequentist ANOVA sometimes gives substantially different results than mixed model, even with no Monte Carlo simulation. See the examples in this JASP file: https://falconbgsu-my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/rand…
-
I think there are complex approaches as well as relatively simple approaches. Personally, I would take a simple approach: Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4: (1) Is identification time different for short vs. long duration? (i.e., Is there a main effect of F…
-
OK then. How about just renaming it to: "Bayesian ANOVA-Like Repeated Measures"?
-
Hi Patc3. This is my mistake. I was mis-remembering slightly. It's the *Bayesian* "repeated-measures ANOVA" that's really a linear mixed-effects model: https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/8568/repeated-measures-anova-with-missing-values
-
Hi. Few things. First, this system has stopped notifying me of replies to my comments. More importantly, I see couple of things that could turn out to be major problems. I'm am only going to talk out the non-Bayesian analyses. (1) Generally, the inc…
-
Probably, you would need to post your .jasp file to this thread.
-
Hi. In your ANOVA, the effect of tone isn't non-significant. It's significant (p < .001). The posthoc test is also significant at p < .001. The F in your ANOVA is the square of the t in your t test. So the results agree exactly.
-
Actually, I meant to indicate something like "sqrt(data[i,"len"]" within an i loop.
-
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…