Is rstatix sufficient/enough for a comprehensive repeated measures ANOVA (3x2x3) (effect size in post-hocs, 95% CI)? The partial eta-squared values for the referees were not sufficient :-P they also want to see the effect sizes of post hocs...I'm going to start a comprehensive and long analysis, but I'm not sure whether to continue with Python or R.
A 3x2x3 design hints the use of a mixed ANOVA, doesn't it? In that case the estimated marginal means (emmeans_test()-function) should be calculated, including the respective effect sizes for the ones showing a low enough p value. If a mixed ANOVA is conducted you have to consider possible interaction effects showing low enoug p values. I agree with the reviewers: Eta² is usually only helpful for others in conducting an a priori power analysis and not interesting when it comes to quantifiying interaction effects or "main" effects. Best Regards, Björn.
In the output of effect size for post-hoc, it shows the magnitudes are moderate, but in your report it is said they both observed as LARGE. I checked Cohen(1992) and it says only bigger than .80 would be large. May I ask why it is large in the example report?
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Is rstatix sufficient/enough for a comprehensive repeated measures ANOVA (3x2x3) (effect size in post-hocs, 95% CI)? The partial eta-squared values for the referees were not sufficient :-P they also want to see the effect sizes of post hocs...I'm going to start a comprehensive and long analysis, but I'm not sure whether to continue with Python or R.
A 3x2x3 design hints the use of a mixed ANOVA, doesn't it? In that case the estimated marginal means (emmeans_test()-function) should be calculated, including the respective effect sizes for the ones showing a low enough p value. If a mixed ANOVA is conducted you have to consider possible interaction effects showing low enoug p values.
I agree with the reviewers: Eta² is usually only helpful for others in conducting an a priori power analysis and not interesting when it comes to quantifiying interaction effects or "main" effects.
Best Regards, Björn.
@@statorials thank you so much!!
In the output of effect size for post-hoc, it shows the magnitudes are moderate, but in your report it is said they both observed as LARGE. I checked Cohen(1992) and it says only bigger than .80 would be large. May I ask why it is large in the example report?
Hello, you found a typo. As you've stated, the effect sizes are moderate, according to Cohen (1992).
Best Regards, Björn.
Thank you Sir, I appreciate it. Btw your videos are very informative and helpful. Looking forward to more contents. @@statorials
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback! @@suomiyabao2868