[Feature Request]: make ANOVA pooled Error Default more visible

[xphysnerd]

JASP Version

0.19.1

Commit ID

No response

JASP Module

ANOVA

What analysis are you seeing the problem on?

Repeated Measures ANOVA

What OS are you seeing the problem on?

Windows 10

Bug Description

Results from a previous JASP version differ when looking at Post-Hoc results with a Bonferroni correction. I have run the same data in R and the results match the previous JASP version. Therefore, I am fairly confident that the new JASP version is giving incorrect p-value and CI results.

Expected Behaviour

Results from a previous JASP version differ when looking at Post-Hoc results with a Bonferroni correction. I have run the same data in R and the results match the previous JASP version. Therefore, I am fairly confident that the new JASP version is giving incorrect p-value and CI results.

Steps to Reproduce

1.Run a repeated measures ANOVA
2.Perform post-hoc tests with bonferroni correction
3.Run the same analysis on a previous JASP version or in R
...

Log (if any)

No response

More Debug Information

No response

Final Checklist

• I have included a screenshot showcasing the issue, if possible.
• I have included a JASP file (zipped) or data file that causes the crash/bug, if applicable.
• I have accurately described the bug, and steps to reproduce it.

[github-actions]

@xphysnerd, thanks for taking the time to create this issue. If possible (and applicable), please upload to the issue website (#3009, attaching to an email does not work) a screenshot showcasing the problem, and/or a compressed (zipped) .jasp file or the data file that causes the issue. If you would prefer not to make your data publicly available, you can send your file(s) directly to us, issues@jasp-stats.org

[JohnnyDoorn]

Hi @xphysnerd ,

Could you please include a data example with the results? We have some safeguards in place that should prevent this kind of stuff, and I am not aware of any changes to the posthoc tests, so any demonstration will greatly help.

Kind regards,
Johnny

[github-actions]

This issue will be automatically closed in 42 days due to inactivity. Feel free to leave a comment if you believe this is still relevant.

[xphysnerd]

The current version incorrectly gives the following table: Post Hoc Tests Post Hoc Comparisons - Time 95% CI for Mean Difference Mean Difference Lower Upper SE t pbonf 1 2 1.493 -0.152 3.138 0.672 2.224 0.088 3 2.987 0.454 5.519 1.034 2.889 0.015 2 3 1.493 -0.228 3.215 0.703 2.125 0.111 *Note.* P-value and confidence intervals adjusted for comparing a family of 3 estimates (confidence intervals corrected using the bonferroni method). The correct tale should be: [image: image.png]

…

On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 3:15 PM Thomas Langkamp ***@***.***> wrote: Closed #3009 <#3009> as completed. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3009 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIJCFF7NZMB3BU6V4VWINJ32JGVJTAVCNFSM6AAAAABRVH6JAGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV45UABCJFZXG5LFIV3GK3TUJZXXI2LGNFRWC5DJN5XDWMJVHAYTQMZQGA4DOMQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[tomtomme]

Thx for the Feedback. Can you share the data that belong to this result and also the correct R results? Without this I think we have no chance of understanding whats going on. Thx