Last updated: 2021-02-18

Checks: 1 1

Knit directory: pools-projects/

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.6.2). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.

R Markdown file: uncommitted changes

The R Markdown file has unstaged changes. To know which version of the R Markdown file created these results, you’ll want to first commit it to the Git repo. If you’re still working on the analysis, you can ignore this warning. When you’re finished, you can run wflow_publish to commit the R Markdown file and build the HTML.

Repository version: ea0a6a6

Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.

The results in this page were generated with repository version ea0a6a6. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.

Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish or wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated: 


Ignored files:
    Ignored:    .Rhistory
    Ignored:    .Rproj.user/

Untracked files:
    Untracked:  analysis/development-study-CFA-invariance-test.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/development-study-CFA.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/development-study-EFA.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/development-study-data-management.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/study-1-power-calculation.Rmd
    Untracked:  code/laplace_functions.R
    Untracked:  code/pdf2png.R
    Untracked:  code/utility_functions.R
    Untracked:  data/efa_results_2021_01_06.csv
    Untracked:  data/fit-test.RData
    Untracked:  data/savedlocalfit.RData
    Untracked:  diagrams/
    Untracked:  item-review-2/expert-review-2-response1.pdf
    Untracked:  item-review-2/expert-review-2-response2.pdf
    Untracked:  item-review-2/expert-review-2-response3.pdf
    Untracked:  item-review-2/pilot-data-item-review.xlsx
    Untracked:  manuscript/
    Untracked:  output/cfa-final-parameterEstimates.csv
    Untracked:  output/cfa_results.csv
    Untracked:  output/corr-plot.pdf
    Untracked:  output/corr-residuals.pdf

Unstaged changes:
    Modified:   .Rprofile
    Deleted:    .gitattributes
    Modified:   .gitignore
    Modified:   analysis/index.Rmd
    Deleted:    analysis/pilot-study-CFA.Rmd
    Deleted:    analysis/pilot-study-EFA.Rmd
    Deleted:    analysis/pilot-study-data-management.Rmd
    Deleted:    analysis/pilot-study-power-calculation.Rmd
    Modified:   code/load_packages.R
    Modified:   item-review-1/response8_nov6.pdf
    Modified:   item-review-2/Overview of Expert Review v2.0 Results.docx

Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.

These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were made to the R Markdown (analysis/index.Rmd) and HTML (docs/index.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.

File Version Author Date Message
Rmd 90cbd51 noah-padgett 2020-11-19 code-folding added
html 90cbd51 noah-padgett 2020-11-19 code-folding added
html 34e8a9d noah-padgett 2020-11-19 updated pilot FAs
Rmd 4856250 noah-padgett 2020-11-19 pilot-efa-results
html 4856250 noah-padgett 2020-11-19 pilot-efa-results
Rmd 76332d3 noah-padgett 2020-10-07 Start workflowr project.

Welcome to our research website for the development and use of the Perceptions of Online Learning Scale (POOLS). POOLS is organized to measure four constructs

  1. Effectivenss of Learning,
  2. Student Centeredness,
  3. Interactiveness of Learning, and
  4. Engagedness of Learning.

POOLS Development Study

  1. Scale construction and the initial item review by content experts

    • An overview of the results of the first item review from subject matter experts can be obtained here.

    • In general, we obtained useful insight into what kinds of questions we should ask participants. Experts gave suggestions for revising items and how to construct the scale in a useful way for the material of interest.

  2. POOLS v1.0 and Data Collection Plan

    • Here, add extra details about the collection of the data collection.

  3. Data Management and Split-Halves Creation

  4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

    • A four-factor solution was determined to be the most interpretable.

    • An updated template for the scale can be found here.

  5. Expert Review 2

    • An overview of the results of the second item review from subject matter experts can be obtained here.

    • We got excellent feedback about the updated version of the scale. Combining the feedback from EFA with the comments from the experts lead to a revised version of the scale. This updated version is given can be found here.

  6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

    • CFA results indicated that the initial model supported by expert guidance did not fit these data well (\(\chi^2 (659) = 1448.6\), \(p< .001\), CFI\(=0.84\), RMSEA\(=0.06\), SRMR\(=0.08\)).

    • After local fit assessment, we reduced the number of items per factor and allows for a few within factor residual covariances to create a more parsimonious assessment for use in larger studies. The global fit of the newly defined POOLS fit better (\(\chi^2(264) = 540.6\), \(p< .001\), CFI \(=0.90\), RMSEA \(=0.06\), SRMR\(=0.06\)).

  7. CFA Invariance Testing (NOT IN MANUSCRIPT)

Future Sampling Design for Planned Missingness