New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
equivalence_test for effectsize tables #70
Comments
everything completely inside the ROPE is "accepted". |
Okay, so like this? library(effectsize)
ds <- t_to_d(t = c(0.45, -0.65, -2.2, 2.25),
df_error = c(675, 525, 900, 1875))
ds
#> d | 95% CI
#> ----------------------
#> 0.03 | [-0.12, 0.19]
#> -0.06 | [-0.23, 0.11]
#> -0.15 | [-0.28, -0.02]
#> 0.10 | [ 0.01, 0.19]
(equi <- equivalence_test(ds, range = .2))
#> # Test for Practical Equivalence
#>
#> ROPE: [-0.20 0.20]
#>
#> d | 95% CI | H0
#> ----------------------------------
#> 0.03 | [-0.12, 0.19] | Accepted
#> -0.06 | [-0.23, 0.11] | Undecided
#> -0.15 | [-0.28, -0.02] | Rejected
#> 0.10 | [ 0.01, 0.19] | Accepted
plot(equi) Created on 2020-04-23 by the reprex package (v0.3.0) |
Yes, that's at least the convention from kruschke that we follow in bayestestR and parameters. |
Awesome - thanks (: |
library(effectsize)
library(magrittr)
F_to_eta2(f = c(4.5,2,1,4),
df = 2,
df_error = c(200,40,100,40)) %>%
equivalence_test() %>%
plot() Created on 2020-04-23 by the reprex package (v0.3.0) |
ehm. wait. (still too tired). "rejected" only if 95% intervals are outside the rope. See e.g. https://easystats.github.io/see/articles/parameters.html#for-random-effects-1 and https://easystats.github.io/see/articles/bayestestR_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-23-1.png |
|
And further:
(from |
Hmmm... But it seems like that's not how the frequentist version works (I've read up some more in the last hour). Due to the NHST logic:
Using CIs, this can be reframed as:
And so, with frequientist equivalence testing: Or decision matrix then looks like this:
* Even though our result is significantly larger than 0, it is also significantly smaller than SESOI. So we accept the null, as it is defined by the ROPE. (Even when accepting the null, the Bayesians and frequentist methods differ... I agree that the Bayesian way is more elegant here, because we can look at the % of the posterior etc...) |
I see that in |
library(effectsize)
ds <- t_to_d(t = c(0.45, -0.65, -2.2, 2.25, 7),
df_error = c(675, 525, 900, 1875, 2000),
ci = 0.95)
equivalence_test(ds, range = 0.2)
#> # Test for Practical Equivalence
#>
#> ROPE: [-0.20 0.20]
#>
#> d | 95% CI | H0
#> ----------------------------------
#> 0.03 | [-0.12, 0.19] | Accepted
#> -0.06 | [-0.23, 0.11] | Undecided
#> -0.15 | [-0.28, -0.02] | Rejected
#> 0.10 | [ 0.01, 0.19] | Accepted
#> 0.31 | [ 0.22, 0.40] | Rejected
equivalence_test(ds, range = 0.2, rule = "cet")
#> # Conditional Test for Practical Equivalence
#>
#> ROPE: [-0.20 0.20]
#>
#> d | 95% CI | H0
#> ----------------------------------
#> 0.03 | [-0.12, 0.19] | Accepted
#> -0.06 | [-0.23, 0.11] | Undecided
#> -0.15 | [-0.28, -0.02] | Rejected
#> 0.10 | [ 0.01, 0.19] | Rejected
#> 0.31 | [ 0.22, 0.40] | Rejected
equivalence_test(ds, range = 0.2, rule = "bayes")
#> # Test for Practical Equivalence
#>
#> ROPE: [-0.20 0.20]
#>
#> d | 95% CI | H0
#> ----------------------------------
#> 0.03 | [-0.12, 0.19] | Accepted
#> -0.06 | [-0.23, 0.11] | Undecided
#> -0.15 | [-0.28, -0.02] | Undecided
#> 0.10 | [ 0.01, 0.19] | Accepted
#> 0.31 | [ 0.22, 0.40] | Rejected
#>
#> (Using Bayesian guidlines) Created on 2020-04-23 by the reprex package (v0.3.0) |
I've added an
equivalence_test
method for effectsize tables (the results to eta/d/cramers v/F_to* etc...). These are solely based on the CIs.(I've also added plotting functions in
see
).@DominiqueMakowski @strengejacke can you take a look at these and make sure there return the correct labels?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: