To assess the internal consistency of the D-Lit questionnaire and each of the subscales separately, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used. Based on the results, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 was the acceptance criterion for the internal reliability of the instrument [42 , 43 (link)]. The software of JASP V.0.11.1 was used to calculate the McDonald’s omega coefficient.
Jasp v 0
Manufactured by JASP Stats
Sourced in United States, Netherlands
JASP v.0.16.3 is a free and open-source statistical software package that provides a user-friendly interface for performing a wide range of statistical analyses. It supports both frequentist and Bayesian approaches to data analysis.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
22 protocols using jasp v 0
1
Assessing Internal Consistency of D-Lit Questionnaire
2
Immersive 360-Video vs. Narrative Empathy
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS v.26. First, two 3 • 2 mixed-design ANOVAs with 3 time points (baseline, 360°video, narrative) as within-subjects factor and order of the conditions' presentation (360°v ideoÔnarrative, narrativeÔ360°video) as betweensubjects factor were performed to analyze the effects of the condition (360°video vs. narrative) on ES and ATG-S (main effect of time) and the effects of the order of the conditions on these measures (interaction effect). Second, two 2 • 2 mixed-design ANOVAs with 2 time points (360°v ideo, narrative) as within-subjects factor and order of the conditions' presentation as between-subjects factor were performed to analyze the effects of the condition on the IOS and PT-S. Post hoc analyses using Bonferroni corrections were carried out when significant effects were found. Third, one-sample t-tests were conducted to explore whether the effect of the 360°-video condition on the embodiment scores, the sense of presence, and sickness were significantly different from the chance level of 4 (on a scale ranging from 1 to 7). Cohen's d for the onesample t-test was calculated using JASP v.0.11.1. 33 Fourth, Pearson's correlations were conducted among the outcome variables of this study. Finally, because a convenience sample of 44 men was used for practical reasons, a post hoc power analysis was conducted. c
3
Mixed ANOVA Analysis of Interview Factors
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Statistical analyses were performed using JASP v.0.14 (Love et al., 2019 (link)). FAA and SCL indicators were analyzed by two-way mixed ANOVA, considering the interviewer as a between-subject factor (five levels: A, B, C, D, and E) and a within-subject factor the interview phase (four levels: P1, P2, P3, and P4). Prior to the analyses, the sphericity of the phase factor and the equality of variances for the interviewer factor were assessed by the Levene's and Mauchly's tests, respectively (Verma, 2015 ).
4
Narrative Themes and Video Viewing
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The statistical analyses were performed using JASP v.0.14 [82 (link)]. Each index was analysed by a two-way mixed ANOVA, considering the Video as a between-subject factor (two levels: M, R) and the narrative theme (hereinafter, Theme) as the within factor (four levels: Nature, Territory, Product, and Production). Prior to the analyses, the sphericity of the Theme and the equality of variances of the Video were assessed by the Levene’s and Mauchly’s tests, respectively. In the case of sphericity violations, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction based on the sphericity estimator was applied [83 ]. All the post-hoc comparisons were Holm-corrected. In the following section, all the significant differences were provided either as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) or marginal mean (MM) and standard error (SE).
After the processing phase, 3 subjects were excluded from further analysis due to the excessive noise in their physiological signals. The final sample consisted of 37 subjects (19 males) with ages ranging from 33 to 56 years (M = 45.24, SD = 7.48). The M and R subgroups groups still did not differ in terms of mean age and gender proportions, as verified by means of the Mann–Whithney (W = 198.500, p = 0.411) and chi-squared , p = 0.873) tests, respectively.
After the processing phase, 3 subjects were excluded from further analysis due to the excessive noise in their physiological signals. The final sample consisted of 37 subjects (19 males) with ages ranging from 33 to 56 years (M = 45.24, SD = 7.48). The M and R subgroups groups still did not differ in terms of mean age and gender proportions, as verified by means of the Mann–Whithney (W = 198.500, p = 0.411) and chi-squared , p = 0.873) tests, respectively.
5
Statistical Analysis Workflow for Researchers
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All statistical tests were performed using JASP v. 0.14 (JASP Team, 2020, Amsterdam, Netherlands), SPSS Statistics v.22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, 2013), R software v.4.1.1. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021, Vienna, Austria) and MedCalc v. 19.5.3 (MedCalc Software Ltd, 2020, Ostend, Belgium) software packages. Normality of data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The cut-off for P-value significance was < 0.05 in all tests.
6
Normality and Comparative Analysis of Eye Data
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Descriptive statistical data and boxplot diagrams were obtained for the total sample, as well as for the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles. To compare the results of the left and right eyes, JASP v.0.13.1 software (Jasp Team, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) was used to assess data normality. Likewise, a non-parametric or parametric test was conducted, depending on the results attained. All of the analysis was carried out with a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05), using the IBM SPSS Statistics v.24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, United States).
7
Agreement of Monocular and Binocular Visual Acuity Tests
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Data obtained from study variables such as age and monocular and binocular VA were sent anonymized to the statistical department of the university where the statistical study was conducted. The statistical analysis consisted of:
To analyse the agreement between the tests, both in the pilot test and in the total sample, normality was assessed in the first place in order to apply parametric or non-parametric tests. Subsequently, we calculated the effect size, the intraclass correlation coefficient, the coefficients of variation and the Bland–Altman limits of agreement.
Also, in addition to the above-mentioned analysis of agreement, and in order to verify the effect of age, an ANOVA was implemented to ascertain the eye by participants‘age interaction. Likewise, we also calculated the descriptive statistical values as a boxplot diagram and the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles for monocular and binocular VA.
All the analyses have been made with a 5% significance level (p < 005), using the IBM SPSS Statistics v.24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, EEUU). To determine the normality and the effect size in the pilot survey, we have used the JASP v.0.13.1 software (Jasp Team, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
To analyse the agreement between the tests, both in the pilot test and in the total sample, normality was assessed in the first place in order to apply parametric or non-parametric tests. Subsequently, we calculated the effect size, the intraclass correlation coefficient, the coefficients of variation and the Bland–Altman limits of agreement.
Also, in addition to the above-mentioned analysis of agreement, and in order to verify the effect of age, an ANOVA was implemented to ascertain the eye by participants‘age interaction. Likewise, we also calculated the descriptive statistical values as a boxplot diagram and the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles for monocular and binocular VA.
All the analyses have been made with a 5% significance level (p < 005), using the IBM SPSS Statistics v.24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, EEUU). To determine the normality and the effect size in the pilot survey, we have used the JASP v.0.13.1 software (Jasp Team, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
8
Evaluating Test Agreement and Repeatability
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
In order to analyse the agreement between the tests and their repeatability in the preliminary study, we first evaluated normality, making it possible for either parametric or non-parametric tests to be used. Subsequently, we calculated the effect size, the intraclass correlation coefficient, the coefficients of variation, and the Bland-Altman limits of agreement.
We obtained descriptive statistics, boxplot diagrams, and the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles for the total sample. In order to assess the impact that age had on the results, we conducted the ANOVA and Tamhane's post hoc tests.
The IBM SPSS Statistics v.24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, United States) was used to perform all of the analyses with a 5% significance level (p < 0.05). To determine the normality and effect size we used the JASP v.0.13.1 software (Jasp Team, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
We obtained descriptive statistics, boxplot diagrams, and the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles for the total sample. In order to assess the impact that age had on the results, we conducted the ANOVA and Tamhane's post hoc tests.
The IBM SPSS Statistics v.24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, United States) was used to perform all of the analyses with a 5% significance level (p < 0.05). To determine the normality and effect size we used the JASP v.0.13.1 software (Jasp Team, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
9
Evaluating Framing Effects on Health Decisions
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All data collected was anonymous and stored on a server at the University of Split School of Medicine. All statistical analyses were performed using JASP v.0.9.0.0 (JASP Team, 2018, Amsterdam, Netherlands). Participants who did not complete the survey were excluded from analysis. Gender, level of education, sources of health information and Internet sources were presented as frequencies and percentages. Numeracy scores were presented as median values with interquartile range.
Comprehension scores (Trials 1 & 2), perceived effectiveness of treatment (Trials 1 & 2), desire that treatment is prescribed by their family physician (Trial 1), readiness to use the treatment (Trial 1) and preference for health information presentation (Trial 2) are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. The differences between different framing groups were tested by using Bayesian t-test for independent samples. Considering that all participants were reading information in both numerical formats (Trial 2), the differences between the groups were tested with Bayesian repeated measures analysis of variance (frequencies vs percentages) with participant sample group (biomedical university students’ vs consumers) as between subject factor.
Comprehension scores (Trials 1 & 2), perceived effectiveness of treatment (Trials 1 & 2), desire that treatment is prescribed by their family physician (Trial 1), readiness to use the treatment (Trial 1) and preference for health information presentation (Trial 2) are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. The differences between different framing groups were tested by using Bayesian t-test for independent samples. Considering that all participants were reading information in both numerical formats (Trial 2), the differences between the groups were tested with Bayesian repeated measures analysis of variance (frequencies vs percentages) with participant sample group (biomedical university students’ vs consumers) as between subject factor.
10
Comparing Formats for Health Information
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All data collected were anonymous and stored on a secure server at the University of Split School of Medicine. All statistical analyses were performed using JASP v.0.9.0.0 (JASP Team, 2018). Participants who did not complete the survey were excluded from analysis. Gender, level of education, sources of health information, and Internet sources were presented as frequencies and percentages. Numeracy scores were presented as median values with interquartile range.
Preference for health information presentation, perceived efficacy of the treatment, and comprehension scores were presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. The differences between formats (PLS and blogshot) were initially tested on the entire sample using the t-test and mean differences. In subgroup analyses, the differences between the formats (PLS and blogshot) and groups (medical students vs patients) were tested using two-way ANOVA (2 × 2 factorial design), in order to avoid alpha error. Effect sizes were expressed using eta squared (η2).
Preference for health information presentation, perceived efficacy of the treatment, and comprehension scores were presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. The differences between formats (PLS and blogshot) were initially tested on the entire sample using the t-test and mean differences. In subgroup analyses, the differences between the formats (PLS and blogshot) and groups (medical students vs patients) were tested using two-way ANOVA (2 × 2 factorial design), in order to avoid alpha error. Effect sizes were expressed using eta squared (η2).
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!