jamovi

Amazing!

Thanks so much that was super useful!

Sorry I should have said in the previous post that I tried that too. The model only had one plot and yet I still extracted myplot<-mod1$mainPlots[[1]] because I figured it might be in an array. Sadly, this still doesn't extract a ggplot object - it still prints a plot but still returns Null if I try...

Thanks for the help - there does still seem to be an issue with doing it this way: myplot<-mod1$mainPlots I can print the myplot object and it will print the plot but the object itself isn't a ggplot object in the the way using myplot <- plot(mod1) is. So for example if I do something like : myplot ...

I guess in addition how would I go about viewing the Gamlj code myself to see how ggplots were generated so I could potentially recreate some of it myself outside of gamlj with just an lmer or lm object? I tried ctrl clicking the gamljlm text but that doesn't quite send me to right place.

I tend to use Gamlj in R and I usually extract the plot object like this: plotObject <- plot(model) However, this doesn't always work across the different models. For example it works in Gamlj 3 mixed models but not Gamlj 2 mixed models. It seems a bit inconsistent throughout, so I sometimes have to...

In the (Bayesian) paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35357978/ and also the famous (frequentist) Bar paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881361/ we want to specify all random slopes in so far as the data support the hypothesis that this variance exists. The recommendation given ...

A really minor point, but just in case others stumble on this thread they might be confused by a typo in the original question: In particular, it appears that the p values may (but not necessarily) be inflated when the model includes random slopes but not random intercepts I think you meant to say i...

Thanks Simonmoon!

Actually this problem was solved (see here: https://forum.cogsci.nl/discussion/8413 ... ion#latest)

We have a bipolar scale that asks do you agree with A more or b more It happened to be coded this way (1) completely agree with A <--> (7) completely agree with B So (4) is indifference It should have been coded this way: (-3) completely agree with A <--> (3) completely agree with B So (0 is indiffe...

Oh - also found a bug. If I set scale back to "None", duplicate the analysis and change the IV to something new it will still say the scale is set to "None" but it will be centered again. You need to click on any of the other ones and then back to "None" again.