You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
ampiccinin wrote: The MAP models were estimated based on 5 occasions of data, but the most recent “seed report” online says “4” for occasions.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Cassandra Brown [email protected] wrote: All MAP models were run with 5 occasions of data. When I checked a selection of the actual models on GitHub they do have the 5 waves included as they should. Andriy is it possible the seed report says 4 occasions because the waves are labelled 00 to 04? I did try to check this but I am not as familiar with the scripts that created these reports so couldn't confirm that this was the reason for the discrepancy.
Andriy wrote: I think it might be a bad/not generic enough formula in one of the dplyr:: clauses:
max(wave)
Instead of
length(unique(wave))
ampiccinin wrote: The MAP models were estimated based on 5 occasions of data, but the most recent “seed report” online says “4” for occasions.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Cassandra Brown [email protected] wrote: All MAP models were run with 5 occasions of data. When I checked a selection of the actual models on GitHub they do have the 5 waves included as they should. Andriy is it possible the seed report says 4 occasions because the waves are labelled 00 to 04? I did try to check this but I am not as familiar with the scripts that created these reports so couldn't confirm that this was the reason for the discrepancy.
Andriy wrote: I think it might be a bad/not generic enough formula in one of the dplyr:: clauses:
max(wave)
Instead of
length(unique(wave))
@andkov : please check and correct this. Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: