]]>

]]>

]]>

ljfriese wrote:

Hey folks, the update has been pushed to jamovi. The DIF table error is gone, a crude DeLong test for differences between AUC's has been added, and the ability to combine ROC plots into a single image has been added. Please try it out and let me know your thoughts!

Hey folks, the update has been pushed to jamovi. The DIF table error is gone, a crude DeLong test for differences between AUC's has been added, and the ability to combine ROC plots into a single image has been added. Please try it out and let me know your thoughts!

Thanks!

I just need to find it where it is

Can you give me a hint?

Statistics: Posted by dr_Primus — Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:16 pm

]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

cheers

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:00 am

]]>

I'd like to request a new feature - the ability to plot bar charts. This would be useful, especially if one could make minor adjustments to the charts (e.g., colors or changing border weight, etc.).

Thanks for your consideration!

Statistics: Posted by PoLyGLoT — Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:41 pm

]]>

Thanks again,

David

Statistics: Posted by davidville — Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:43 am

]]>

]]>

But how about this idea, even more generally:

One issue with teaching stats is the inconsistency of language and notation, and intro stats textbooks have different language and notation too.

So, for some common inconsistent language and notation, have a dialog, or options box, or package where one select the notation/language used, so that the jamovi language/notation is consistent with the textbook one is using?

As examples (perhaps poor as I am taking these from the top of my greying head): in regression the x variable has heaps of names: predictor, explanatory, independent variable to name but three. Imagine a dialog, option, package where the name could be set so it was consistent throughout, and with the textbook, to avoid confusing students? Likewise, "stemplot" vs "stem-and-leaf plot' (admittedly less confusing), "least-squares regression line" vs "line of best fit", etc. And, of course, "Mean difference" vs "Difference: Means" :->

Two cents...

P.

Statistics: Posted by PeteD — Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:51 am

]]>

i'll call it "just for pete"

i'm sufficiently amused by this idea that i'll probably do it.

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:32 am

]]>

But I still challenge you to find an intro stats book where this is discussed in this way, so that jamovi could be useful for teaching.

Damned both ways indeed!

P.

Statistics: Posted by PeteD — Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:31 am

]]>

i think the CI needs to match the p-value.

i know that a lot of people/teachers teach the "if the CI contains zero, then the result will not be significant" thing, so disconnecting the CI from the p-value would confuse these people.

i'd suggest teaching it as follows:

"so when we use a one-tailed test of a > b, we no longer care about the situation in which a < b ... if a < b we'll get a very large p-value. in the same way, with confidence intervals, can you see that we no longer care about the lower bound of b - a? and so that's why it's gone to negative infinity. the plus side to all of this is that when a > b, our p-value will be more 'accurate', as will the upper bound of our confidence interval."

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:28 am

]]>