TreeBUGS - Hierarchical Multinomial Processing Tree Modeling

User-friendly analysis of hierarchical multinomial processing tree (MPT) models that are often used in cognitive psychology. Implements the latent-trait MPT approach (Klauer, 2010) <DOI:10.1007/s11336-009-9141-0> and the beta-MPT approach (Smith & Batchelder, 2010) <DOI:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.06.007> to model heterogeneity of participants. MPT models are conveniently specified by an .eqn-file as used by other MPT software and data are provided by a .csv-file or directly in R. Models are either fitted by calling JAGS or by an MPT-tailored Gibbs sampler in C++ (only for nonhierarchical and beta MPT models). Provides tests of heterogeneity and MPT-tailored summaries and plotting functions. A detailed documentation is available in Heck, Arnold, & Arnold (2018) <DOI:10.3758/s13428-017-0869-7> and a tutorial on MPT modeling can be found in Schmidt, Erdfelder, & Heck (2023) <DOI:10.1037/met0000561>.

Last updated 7 months ago

7.84 score 12 stars 1 packages 53 scripts 503 downloads

metaBMA - Bayesian Model Averaging for Random and Fixed Effects Meta-Analysis

Computes the posterior model probabilities for standard meta-analysis models (null model vs. alternative model assuming either fixed- or random-effects, respectively). These posterior probabilities are used to estimate the overall mean effect size as the weighted average of the mean effect size estimates of the random- and fixed-effect model as proposed by Gronau, Van Erp, Heck, Cesario, Jonas, & Wagenmakers (2017, <doi:10.1080/23743603.2017.1326760>). The user can define a wide range of non-informative or informative priors for the mean effect size and the heterogeneity coefficient. Moreover, using pre-compiled Stan models, meta-analysis with continuous and discrete moderators with Jeffreys-Zellner-Siow (JZS) priors can be fitted and tested. This allows to compute Bayes factors and perform Bayesian model averaging across random- and fixed-effects meta-analysis with and without moderators. For a primer on Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis, see Gronau, Heck, Berkhout, Haaf, & Wagenmakers (2021, <doi:10.1177/25152459211031256>).

Last updated 10 months ago

bayesbayes-factorbayesian-inferenceevidence-synthesismeta-analysismodel-averagingstan

7.09 score 28 stars 1 packages 53 scripts 2.8k downloads

RRreg - Correlation and Regression Analyses for Randomized Response Data

Univariate and multivariate methods to analyze randomized response (RR) survey designs (e.g., Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69, <doi:10.2307/2283137>). Besides univariate estimates of true proportions, RR variables can be used for correlations, as dependent variable in a logistic regression (with or without random effects), or as predictors in a linear regression (Heck, D. W., & Moshagen, M. (2018). RRreg: An R package for correlation and regression analyses of randomized response data. Journal of Statistical Software, 85(2), 1–29, <doi:10.18637/jss.v085.i02>). For simulations and the estimation of statistical power, RR data can be generated according to several models. The implemented methods also allow to test the link between continuous covariates and dishonesty in cheating paradigms such as the coin-toss or dice-roll task (Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2017). The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 724–732, <doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0729-x>).

Last updated 2 years ago

5.46 score 3 stars 48 scripts 429 downloads

MCMCprecision - Precision of Discrete Parameters in Transdimensional MCMC

Estimates the precision of transdimensional Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) output, which is often used for Bayesian analysis of models with different dimensionality (e.g., model selection). Transdimensional MCMC (e.g., reversible jump MCMC) relies on sampling a discrete model-indicator variable to estimate the posterior model probabilities. If only few switches occur between the models, precision may be low and assessment based on the assumption of independent samples misleading. Based on the observed transition matrix of the indicator variable, the method of Heck, Overstall, Gronau, & Wagenmakers (2019, Statistics & Computing, 29, 631-643) <doi:10.1007/s11222-018-9828-0> draws posterior samples of the stationary distribution to (a) assess the uncertainty in the estimated posterior model probabilities and (b) estimate the effective sample size of the MCMC output.

Last updated 5 months ago

5.40 score 4 packages 42 scripts 845 downloads

multinomineq - Bayesian Inference for Multinomial Models with Inequality Constraints

Implements Gibbs sampling and Bayes factors for multinomial models with linear inequality constraints on the vector of probability parameters. As special cases, the model class includes models that predict a linear order of binomial probabilities (e.g., p[1] < p[2] < p[3] < .50) and mixture models assuming that the parameter vector p must be inside the convex hull of a finite number of predicted patterns (i.e., vertices). A formal definition of inequality-constrained multinomial models and the implemented computational methods is provided in: Heck, D.W., & Davis-Stober, C.P. (2019). Multinomial models with linear inequality constraints: Overview and improvements of computational methods for Bayesian inference. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 91, 70-87. <doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2019.03.004>. Inequality-constrained multinomial models have applications in the area of judgment and decision making to fit and test random utility models (Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C.P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42–56, <doi:10.1037/a0021150>) or to perform outcome-based strategy classification to select the decision strategy that provides the best account for a vector of observed choice frequencies (Heck, D.W., Hilbig, B.E., & Moshagen, M. (2017). From information processing to decisions: Formalizing and comparing probabilistic choice models. Cognitive Psychology, 96, 26–40. <doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.05.003>).

Last updated 9 months ago

4.18 score 3 stars 4 scripts 280 downloads