agenda-live study review (Fall 2021)

[jessb0t]

Password-protection of the trackers. From George:

the google calendar lists the date of their visit and their name. on the same google account, the tracker used to list their redcap id and the date. thus, if we do not create dummy id numbers for the redcap ids on the tracker, the data would be identifiable in google drive to someone with access to the drive. SO, we went ahead and created dummy numbers for the tracker. BUt, i sort of feel like that is a bit of a nuisance, so, it might be easier for us (and still safe in terms of confidentiality protections) to have irb approvable to store identifiable data on google drive. thus, we want an amendment to store the identifiable data not only on redcap and now the shared drive, but also google drive (albiet in password protected google drive docs).

Need to test utility of password-protected trackers in Google Drive. If easy, then submit IRB amendment to allow this option.

10/28/2021: discussed some confusion that, in fact, the tracker and the Calendly-generated e-mails are not shared across accounts, so the data is already siloed.

JA: test interconnectivity and potential risks of removing the randomly-generated numbers :white_check_mark: JA: figure out how to password-protect the trackers on Drive :x:

12/16/2021:

• use REDCap IDs for any new studies
• JA to share index//match to make it easy to transition existing trackers :white_check_mark:
• transition RWE :white_check_mark:
• transition SC :white_check_mark:

[jessb0t]

Opt-out v Opt-in

From Sarah: Should we change the study description on SONA to include an "opt-out" option for part 2, rather than having participants only complete part 1, as we discussed. Do we need to wait for IRB approval before we can change this?

From Jess: Necessary changes included in IRB amendments, need to determine how to roll out to Sona.

Completed as part of the 09/2021 IRB amendment roll-out.

[jessb0t]

Missing Link Counterbalance Arina raised issue 9/7 at lab meeting that current counterbalancing system is, by pure luck, leading to all participants being in the same notification group for ML.

Arina and George discussed in September and then found a way to manually increase the randomization by only assigning the counterbalancing on the tracker when individuals sign-up for part 1b.

[ostibolt]

Secret Code Identifier In the Bukach Lab at UR, we had three questions that all participants filled out upon their arrival. We had this protocol in place to connect participants' data across sessions of the same experiment or even across totally different experiments without using any identifiable data.

1. What are the first two letters of the town you were born in?
2. What day were you born?
3. What is the sum of the last two digits of your phone number?

This creates a personal identifier like Mi2109 (Born in Miami, birthday April 21st, phone number ends in -7856).

By having each participant generate their own ID, then it's secret from the experimenters and the participant will (almost) always know their Secret Code. Some issues we ran into were people not knowing where they were born, and sometimes just putting the last two digits of their phone number in instead of adding them (adding them is important, so we wouldn't be able to connect it back to their real phone number). Both of these issues lead to inconsistent Secret Codes for the same participant across multiple sessions, so it may be worth considering other code-generating questions to use instead.

Cool idea, no need to deploy with the current studies.

[jessb0t]

RWE part 1A comments from Olivia- applicable for other studies

1. Shouldn't have survey name visible to participant
2. Vigilance scales: "Less than once a year" likert choice should probably be “once a year”
3. Covid questionnaire: Qs 34, 35, 36 confusing, are they still referring to a before/during pandemic comparison? Or just no video for zoom in general?

1. Group discussion that it is standard to include, so we will keep them.
2. Decision to match the published instrument.
3. Very valid points, will need to consider down the road.

[jessb0t]

Rollout of 09/2021 IRB Amendments

• new 1A consent for SC and RWE (ML consent remains unchanged)
• increase compensation for 1B (note: new consent form to be used)
• use those Calendly alternatives
• switch out to the new demographics questionnaire (with questions about familiarity with our research and language history)
• drop the TAI and IDEA
• add the THQ (must be optional and must include notes with mental health services during administration of the questionnaire) >>> Alycia to plan out the new REDCap instrument :white_check_mark:

RWE 10/26/2021 :white_check_mark:

• switch 1A consent :white_check_mark:
• switch 1B consent :white_check_mark:
• update protocol with increased compensation for 1B :white_check_mark:
• update auto-emails in REDCap for new duration for 1B :white_check_mark:
• update demographics questionnaire :white_check_mark:
• remove TAI and IDEA questionnaires :white_check_mark:
• add THQ questionnaire (all questions marked as optional, survey instructions to include contact info for CAPS (for FIU students), the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and Miami-Dade Community Services.) :white_check_mark:
• update "Decision 1B" inside REDCap for opt-out paradigm (including branching logic within instrument and in survey queue) :white_check_mark:
• set up continuation of participant numbering :white_check_mark:
• update duration/credits info on Sona info (Brief Abstract, Detailed Description, Part 2 Duration :white_check_mark:
• Part 2 credit update [Sona administrator]) :white_check_mark:
• swap out Sona link :white_check_mark:
• add jRAs to new REDCap project :white_check_mark:
• update REDCap file repository :white_check_mark:
• confirm non-duplication of participant e-mails for part 1b start :white_check_mark:
• edit Calendly duration :white_check_mark:
• fix typo in SSSQPRE ("during the past ten minutes") :white_check_mark:

SC 12/17/2021 :white_check_mark:

• switch 1A consent
• switch 1B consent
• update protocol with increased compensation for 1B
• update auto-emails in REDCap for new duration for 1B
• update demographics, sssqpre, and adexi questionnaires
• remove TAI and IDEA questionnaires
• add THQ questionnaire (all questions marked as optional, survey instructions to include contact info for CAPS (for FIU students), the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and Miami-Dade Community Services.)
• update survey queue
• update "Decision 1B" inside REDCap for opt-out paradigm (including branching logic within instrument and in survey queue)
• set up continuation of participant numbering
• update duration/credits info on Sona info (Brief Abstract, Detailed Description, Part 2 Duration
• Part 2 credit update [Sona administrator])
• swap out Sona link
• add jRAs to new REDCap project
• update REDCap file repository
• confirm non-duplication of participant e-mails for part 1b start
• edit Calendly duration

[emach039]

Rollout of 09/2021 IRB Amendments

• new 1A consent for SC and RWE (ML consent remains unchanged)
• increase compensation for 1B (note: new consent form to be used)
• use those Calendly alternatives
• switch out to the new demographics questionnaire (with questions about familiarity with our research and language history)
• drop the TAI and IDEA
• add the THQ (must be optional and must include notes with mental health services during administration of the questionnaire)

In addition:

1. Change language inside of RedCap alerts to reflect the new changes (i.e Part 1B has higher compensation, Part 1B lasts 2 hours for SC and RWE)
2. Change language in any areas of RedCap that might reflect the old times and credits.
3. Change language inside of SONA about the study (i.e Part 1B has higher compensation, Part 1B lasts 2 hours for SC and RWE), as well as change the settings inside to reflect the new change.
4. Change IRB number information in SONA (unsure if it stays the same, or if sometimes changes when an amendment is placed...)
5. For Calendly, edit the duration for SC and RWE. (2 hours)

Added above!

[SarahMalykke]

In the SSSQ pre-task for 1A, question 20 states: "I am concerned about the impression I was making", however, it's placed before the participants do any of the tasks.

Jess confirmed error. Fixed in RWE and added to checklist for SC re-launch.

Also, even if participants answer "no" to continue with 1B, they are still directed to the Calendly instrument.

Re-tested 10/27/2021 after changing the "Part 1B Decision" logic for RWE. Now testing with the expected behavior.

[jessb0t]

Correct DOB Data Plan out manual project to add MOB and YOB datapoints, then delete DOB datapoint.

JA to manipulate in Excel, then store in Shared CCF Drive as an encrypted folder. :rocket: Once data is safe, JA to delete DOB field from REDCap. :rocket:

:arrow_right: moved into GitHub issue on devOps (JA)

[jessb0t]

Differing Structures for Raw

These are all the REDCap data (not Zoom or Pavlovia):

I think the third would be best for REDCap data?

10/28/2021: We'll switch to the third option (currently used by RWE) for SC. As Missing Link will pause data collection after this semester, no need to change.

JA: pull csv files out loose for SC :white_check_mark: EM: update protocol and inform team of change :white_check_mark:

[jessb0t]

Reword no-show e-mail

From Emily: when you have a noshow participant that's not responsive or anything, are you done with that participant or can they potentially reschedule? aitana sent the participant the no show email and the way its written implies they cant reschedule should they want to. making sure since this is the first no-show our study has had!

Update e-mail.

SC :white_check_mark: RWE :white_check_mark:

[jessb0t]

Pavlovia Tokens and Public Experiments Concern over burning tokens with public experiments. From GB:

we dont want to burn tokens for sure. I am pretty sure you are right that this will burn tokens. Not sure why it would not. And that is bad. So good catch! OK, so i think the quick fix here is: we make the studies private, to be safe for now. And then we decide a way to still share things. One easy way to still share, would be to just push our code to gh. But, we can think about better methods. in short, I think the plan for now (unless you disagree) is to swtich all studies to private. And then, at the end of the year, we think about how to share the code still (i.e. gh or elsewhere). While a big priority of our lab is open source, we already do so much to do that, and so we dont need to do it at our own expense. So, I am fine with making things private and figuring out a plan for sharing after the semester ends

JA: Suggest leaving for now, but testing after data collection ends this semester to see if running the experiment via this public button actually consumes a token or not.

JA to test with Missing Link. :white_check_mark: JA to make live studies on Pavlovia private. :white_check_mark: JA to confirm if GitLab links can still be public while Pavlovia is private. :white_check_mark: (no, they can't)

[jessb0t]

Pavlovia Data Saving JA:

In looking into this other question about Pavlovia tokens, I came across this post. TL;DR: a way to hold the participant on the task until Pavlovia has confirmed that it received the data. Not sure to what extent this remains a concern for us, but sharing in case it is useful!

GB:

seems relevant! At least, we should look into if this option is viable for us. @Emily Machado @Sarah Malykke can you please take a look and follow up if you think this would work for us, or would present alternative issues?

JA to check if this is now built-in. :white_check_mark: (Yes, this appears to be built in now. Note that the link above was actually for a jsPsych experiment and not a PsychoPy experiment, so it was not applicable to our code.) Study leads to add text to REDCap survey to warn participants to wait until Pavlovia tells them it's ok to exit. SC :x: RWE :x:

[jessb0t]

Pavlovia

Make flanker, dccs, and n-back all function as a single task in Pavlovia.

JA to look into this as part of readAloud-valence. :arrow_right: moved into GitHub issue on fiu-toolbox (JA) Note: make sure final page of task doesn't imply that the study is complete

[jessb0t]

Post-Pavlovia REDCap

From GB: All, something that came up in that last social context meeting, is that, currently, after each EF task in part 1a, redcap says something along the lines of "thank you" or "you have completed the task", and, that this might lead to some thinking they are done and not continuing. I believe we discussed this before, and maybe even changed it for some of the online studies already. Nonetheless, I would like to please add this to the agenda.

Study leads to check and adjust as needed if REDCap surveys show "Thank you" message after completion of a specific instrument. SC :white_check_mark: RWE :white_check_mark:

[jessb0t]

Cutting Down Questionnaires

• COVID
• sleep (shorten)
• SICS
• initial State
• demographics (shorten)
• others?

JA: COVID (talk to Olivia to reduce to 8-10 items) :rocket: :arrow_right: moved into GitHub issue on instruments (JA) JA: demographics :x: SICS: cut the survey entirely (JA has logged for future amendment to SC, RWE, Putt-Putt and EEG) sleep: use six question from Psychological Assessment (JA has logged for future amendment to SC, RWE, Putt-Putt and EEG)

[anaNDClab]

Short Versions of the Sleep Questionnaire Here are two studies that use a short or brief version of the PSQI sleep questionnaire. The first study is titled Shortening of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Survey Using Factor Analysis and I believe it shortens the sleep questionnaire to about 7 questions out of the original 10. The second study is titled Brief Version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (B-PSQI) and Measurement Invariance Across Gender and Age in a Population-Based Sample and it seems to shorten the sleep questionnaire to about 6 questions.

1. PSQI short.pdf
2. 2020-81346-001.pdf

[emach039]

Deleting Participant Data

Making protocols more granular about when we offer to delete data and what data we offer to delete.

For participants who wish to end their participation and reach out to us physically (i.e through a personalized email) during 1A:

1. Ask if they'd like their contact information deleted. If they say yes, their email and phone number will be taken out of the interest form.
2. Delete any incoming notifications.
3. Remove them from SONA if they haven't already.
4. ONLY IF THEY ASK: Remove their data from RedCap

For participants who wish to end their participation and reach out to us physically (i.e through a personalized email or during the Zoom call) during 1B:

1. Ask if they'd like their data deleted. If they say yes, their RedCap data will be removed from Redcap.
2. If they say no to the above, ask if they'd like their contact information deleted. If they say yes, their email and phone number will be taken out of the interest form.
3. Delete any incoming notifications.

Already done!

[jessb0t]

Option to Withhold Credit

JA: Check into how we might include in IRB amendment with new jRAs. :rocket: