Show pageBacklinksCite current pageExport to PDFBack to top This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong. ====== JASP ====== === 🧱 Overpromised Accessibility, Underdelivered Depth === JASP markets itself as a user-friendly GUI for statistical analysis, but this ease of use comes at the cost of **limited methodological depth and flexibility**. * The simplified interface encourages **black-box application** of statistics without fostering true understanding. * Advanced users find the software **restrictive**, lacking support for custom models, complex data structures, and scripting. * The default settings and automated procedures may **lead novices to misuse or misinterpret results**. === 🔍 Limited Statistical and Meta-Analytic Features === * While JASP supports basic meta-analysis, it **lacks advanced capabilities** such as network meta-analysis, multivariate models, and robust meta-regression. * The Bayesian methods implemented are **simplistic** and do not cover the breadth needed for nuanced inference. * Diagnostic tools for heterogeneity, publication bias, and influence analyses are **basic or missing**. === 🤖 No Integration with Automation or Data Extraction Tools === * JASP operates in isolation, with **no built-in support for literature screening, data extraction, or risk of bias assessment**. * It offers **no API or scripting interface**, limiting reproducibility and workflow automation. * Collaboration features are minimal or nonexistent. === 📉 Reproducibility and Transparency Issues === * Although JASP allows export of analysis scripts, the lack of full scripting limits transparency compared to command-line alternatives. * Version control and project management features are weak, hindering collaborative reproducible research. * Output reports are standardized but **offer limited customization**. === ⚠️ Accessibility vs. Professionalism Trade-Off === * JASP’s low barrier to entry can foster **overconfidence among inexperienced users**, increasing risk of analytical errors. * Professional statisticians and methodologists often reject JASP due to its **limited scope and control**. * The software’s popularity in teaching may not translate to rigorous research environments. === 🧨 Final Verdict === JASP is a **convenient tool for introductory statistics and teaching**, but it is **unsuitable for complex, high-stakes meta-analyses or advanced research**. Its **simplistic interface, limited features, and poor integration** hinder rigorous evidence synthesis and reproducibility. **Recommendation:** Use JASP for learning or exploratory data analysis only. For robust meta-analytic work, prefer more flexible and transparent tools like R packages or advanced workflow platforms. ====== Better Alternatives to JASP ====== === 🥇 R with Meta-Analysis Packages (metafor, meta, netmeta) === * ✅ Full scripting flexibility for complex and customized meta-analyses * ✅ Supports network meta-analysis, multivariate models, and Bayesian methods * ✅ Integrates with R Markdown for reproducible research reports * ➕ **Why better than JASP:** Greater control, transparency, and methodological sophistication === 🔍 Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) === * ✅ User-friendly GUI tailored to meta-analysis * ✅ Supports subgroup and sensitivity analyses and other advanced features * ✅ Widely used in clinical research with strong support * ➕ **Why better than JASP:** More focused and feature-rich for meta-analytic purposes === 🤖 AI-Augmented Tools: Elicit + RobotReviewer === * ✅ Automate literature screening, data extraction, and bias assessment * ✅ Reduce manual workload and increase accuracy * ➕ **Why better than JASP:** Streamlines upstream review tasks typically manual in JASP workflows === 🔧 Systematic Review Platforms: Covidence, DistillerSR === * ✅ Manage full systematic review workflow: screening, extraction, bias assessment, export * ✅ Collaboration-friendly with version control and audit trails * ➕ **Why better than JASP:** Supports entire review lifecycle, not just statistical analysis === 📊 Summary Table === ^ Tool ^ Strengths ^ Why Better Than JASP ^ | R (metafor, meta, netmeta) | Advanced scripting, flexibility, reproducibility | Maximum control and transparency | | Comprehensive Meta-Analysis | GUI with rich meta-analytic features | More advanced and focused than JASP | | Elicit + RobotReviewer | AI-assisted extraction and bias assessment | Automates and accelerates manual processes | | Covidence / DistillerSR | Full systematic review management | Manages complete SR workflow collaboratively | === 🧠 Final Recommendation === * Use **[[R packages]]** for advanced and reproducible meta-analyses. * Use **[[CMA]]** for GUI-driven, feature-rich meta-analysis. * Use **[[Elicit]] and [[RobotReviewer]]** to automate evidence extraction and bias assessment. * Use **[[Covidence]] or [[DistillerSR]]** to manage the entire systematic review process. * Use **[[JASP]]** primarily for teaching and simple exploratory analyses. jasp.txt Last modified: 2025/07/01 16:42by administrador