EDI survey
  • Main report
  • Codebook

Contents

  • introduction
    • general
    • original order of presentation
    • order of data summaries
  • data summaries
    • participant EDI experience
      • gender
        • identity
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • felt affected
          • figure
          • table
        • treatment, self-regard, isolation
          • figure
          • table
      • sexual orientation
        • identity
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • felt affected
          • figure
          • table
        • treatment, self-regard, isolation
          • figure
          • table
      • race / culture
        • identity
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • felt affected
          • figure
          • table
        • treatment, self-regard, isolation
          • figure
          • table
      • disability / neurodivergence
        • identity
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • felt affected
          • figure
          • table
        • treatment, self-regard, isolation
          • figure
          • table
      • written-English language dominance
        • identity
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • felt affected
          • figure
          • table
        • treatment, self-regard, isolation
          • figure
          • table
    • participant background
      • career status
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI dimensions
      • type of engagement with PsychoPy®
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI variables
      • ways of contributing
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
          • descriptions
        • interactions
          • gender
          • sexual orientation
          • race and/or culture
          • disability and/or neurodivergence
          • English as dominant language
      • deterrents to contributing
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • sexual orientation
          • race and/or culture
          • disability and/or neurodivergence
          • English as dominant language
      • workshops on contributing
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI dimensions
    • guidance
      • awareness of Code of Conduct
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI dimensions
      • findability, searchability, & accessibility
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI dimensions
      • trust in enforcement
        • everyone
          • figure
          • table
        • interactions
          • gender
          • other EDI variables
  • Main R Packages used
  • Appendix
    • Colour-blindness check
      • two colours
      • three colours
      • five colours
      • six colours

Summaries of initial survey responses

Equity, diversity, and inclusion in the PsychoPy community

Author
Affiliation

Patrick Bolger, PhD | Community Development Champion

School of Psychology at the University of Nottingham

Published

20 Nov 2023, 3:51 pm

(Powered by Quarto and R)

introduction

This report summarises the findings of a survey sent out to the PsychoPy community between 28 November 2022 and 16 March 2023. The topic was equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the PsychoPy community.

Funding

The development of the survey was funded by a grant from the Essential Open Source Software for Science program at the Chan Zuckerberg Inititiative. Here is the project page at CZI.

It was the first, baseline version, of two identical surveys to be sent out. The second will be sent out in 2024.

It was sent out as an announcement to the PsychoPy User Forum on the Discourse platform. It was also sent out by email to a list of authors generated through a cited-reference search on the Web of Science. Specifically, these authors published multiple research studies citing one or more papers authored (or co-authored) by Jonathan Peirce over the past two decades about PsychoPy.

The survey contained between 25-75 questions, depending on how participants responded.

Responses were all anonymous. That is, nowhere do we have any record of who, exactly, replied to the survey.

There were three main parts to the survey:

  • participant background
  • EDI experience 
  • guidance

Participant background asked participants about their career status, the degree to which they were engaged in the PsychoPy community, how they contributed to the project, and if there was anything that deterred them from contributing more than they already do.

Below are the full survey categories in more detail, roughly in order of the original presentation.

  • Professional & PsychoPy background
    • career status
    • type of engagement with PsychoPy®
    • ways of contributing
    • deterrents to contributing
  • EDI experience
    • gender
    • sexual orientation
    • race and/or culture
    • disability and/or neurodivergence
    • language dominance
  • PsychoPy Guidance
    • awareness of Code of Conduct
    • findability, searchability, & accessibility of documentation
    • trust in enforcement of Code of Conduct

general

original order of presentation

The original presentation of the survey begins with professional and PsychoPy background questions. It then proceeds to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) for respondents who indicated that they not only are part of a particular identity of interest, but also feel they have been affected somehow by having that identity in the PsychoPy community. The survey finished with a few questions about the Code of Conduct and documentation, which we will simply call PsychoPy guidance. Thus:

  • Professional and PsychoPy background
  • EDI experience
  • PsychoPy guidance

Each participant saw the all of the professional and PsychoPy background items on the survey, as well as the PsychoPy guidance items. In the section on EDI experience, each respondent saw at least one of the questions, with the exception of gender, in which case everyone saw at least two.

The one EDI questions that everyone saw had to do with whether they identified with, or was typically associated with, one of the EDI groups. In the case of gender, they simply indicated what their gender was, or if it was not listed.

If they answered yes to any particular EDI question (or any response for gender), two more questions appeared. The first invited them to supply more specific information about that particular aspect of their identity, but only if they wanted to. The second had to do with whether they felt that this particular aspect of their identity had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy® community.

Importantly, this latter question determined whether participants saw a further eight questions regarding that particular identity. If they answered yes, they saw those questions a little bit later in the survey. If they answered no, they did not.

This has an important implication. Namely, although one may identify or be associated with a particular identity, that does not necessarily mean that one feels that it had affected one’s interactions in the PsychoPy® community. Indeed, there were many participants throughout the survey who felt that although they are associated with a particular identity, it had not affected their interactions.

Recall that for the dimension of gender, everyone saw the question concerning whether they felt that their interactions had suffered as a result of gender. This is because everyone has a gender identity, so there was no logical way of excluding anyone from seeing the subsequent community-interaction question.

order of data summaries

Each of the headings in the list above above is depicted below with a visualization, followed by a table of the data, and in the cases of identity, a table of labels that some participants optionally supplied to describe themselves on that particular EDI variable.

Ultimately however, it makes more sense to present the data summaries in a different order. Specifically, it would be informative to see how the background variables and related issues interact with the EDI variables. Therefore, the background and guidance variables are presented after the EDI variables, giving us a data-summary order as follows:

  • EDI experience
  • Professional & PsychoPy background
  • PsychoPy Guidance

Each background and guidance variable is presented in isolation first, but then followed by two-way interactions with the EDI variables of gender, sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance. In some cases, the interactions with the latter four EDI variables are presented in a single figure.

To the extent possible, each summary is available as a link in the sidebar. However, some interactions were grouped together and don’t have links, per se. Most commonly, interactions with gender are linked, followed by interactions with other EDI variables.

Note that none of the questions required responses. This means that there will be plenty of non-responses in the summaries below. These are indicated as either NA or missing.


data summaries

participant EDI experience

The second group of items on the survey (again, presented first here) collected information about selected dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, namely gender, sexual orientation, race and/or culture, disability and/or neurodivergence, and language dominance.

For each dimension, participants were asked if they identified with the dimension, or whether they thought that others would associate them with it, along with the optional opportunity to supply more information about their own specific identity along this dimension.

Crucially, they were also asked whether they felt that that identity or association had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy® community. If they answered in the affirmative, they saw eight more questions related to this identity shortly thereafter in the survey.

Thus, the reader will notice that the sample sizes uniformly differ greatly between those who answered the background questions, and those who answered the eight further questions.

These eight further questions fell into three categories in the manner shown below:

  • Treatment by others
    • negative perception
    • need to hide identity
    • dismissiveness towards contributions
    • target of derisive comments
    • target of microaggressions
  • Self-regard
    • self-doubt
    • stereotype threat
  • Isolation
    • a desire to interact with others more like themselves

Participants could agree or disagree with each of these statements using a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly disagree and a 7 indicated Strongly agree.

Note

Note that on the 1-7 scale for each of the statements, the number 4 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. You will see that we set responses of 4 to the side of the respective stacked frequency barplots, in yellow.

Also, the barplots are sorted within each category (treatment, self-regard, and isolation) along descending frequency of agreement. That is, the topmost barplot within each category is the one with highest number of agreements, whereas the bottom-most barplot within each category is the one with the highest number of disagreements.

Summaries of the responses to these statements are provided below after the respective questions concerning their identity.

gender

The first EDI category is gender. We present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Which gender do you identify most with?

figure

Barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Which gender do you identify most with?'

table

Summary of responses to gender.

Question

N = 2301

Which gender do you identify most with?

man

133 (58%)

woman

85 (37%)

not listed

8 (3.5%)

(missing)

4 (1.7%)

1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose not listed as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their gender in their own words, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your gender here (or not)


felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Barplot of responses to: 'Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their gender identity.

Question

N = 2301

Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

Yes

5 (2.2%)

No

209 (91%)

(missing)

16 (7.0%)

1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding gender determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.


treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the five who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their gender identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy® community. Of those, four provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to several statements on gender, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding gender

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my gender]

Mean

1.8

SD

1.50

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.8

Range

1, 4

I have felt the need to hide [my gender] in order to be taken seriously

Mean

2.3

SD

1.89

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.8

Range

1, 5

My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my gender]

Mean

2.0

SD

1.41

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.5

Range

1, 4

I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my gender]

Mean

2.0

SD

1.41

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.5

Range

1, 4

[Due to my gender] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful

Mean

2.3

SD

1.89

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.8

Range

1, 5

[Due to my gender] I have doubted my own potential

Mean

3.8

SD

2.17

Median

4.0

IQR

3.0, 4.0

Range

1, 7

[Due to my gender] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills

Mean

3.6

SD

2.30

Median

4.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

Range

1, 7

I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in gender] to me

Mean

3.2

SD

3.03

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 6.0

Range

1, 7


sexual orientation

The second EDI category is sexual orientation. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Barplot of responses to the following: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?'

table

Summary of responses to sexual orientation

Question

N = 2301

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Yes

36 (16%)

No

189 (82%)

(missing)

5 (2.2%)

1n (%)


descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their sexual identity, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your sexual orientation here (or not)


felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Barplot of responses to the following: 'Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community...?'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their sexual orientation

Question

N = 2301

Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

Yes

1 (0.4%)

No

35 (15%)

(missing)

194 (84%)

1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding sexual orientation determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.


treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the one who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their sexual orientation has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy® community. Of those, one provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to several statements on sexuality, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding sexual orientation

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my non-heterosexuality]

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

I have felt the need to hide [my non-heterosexuality] in order to be taken seriously

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my non-heterosexuality]

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my non-heterosexuality]

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have doubted my own potential

Mean

1.0

SD

NA

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.0

Range

1, 1

[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills

Mean

2.0

SD

NA

Median

2.0

IQR

2.0, 2.0

Range

2, 2

I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in non-heterosexuality] to me

Mean

4.0

SD

NA

Median

4.0

IQR

4.0, 4.0

Range

4, 4


race / culture

The third EDI category is race and/or culture. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Barplot of responses to: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race/culture that is potentially discriminated against?'

table

Summary of responses to race and/or culture

Question

N = 2301

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Yes

42 (18%)

No

184 (80%)

(missing)

4 (1.7%)

1n (%)


descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their race(s) and/or culture(s), though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your race and/or culture here (or not)


felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their race and/or culture

Question

N = 2301

Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

Yes

3 (1.3%)

No

39 (17%)

(missing)

188 (82%)

1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding race and/our culture determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.


treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the three who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their racial and/or cultural identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy® community. Of those, three provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to statements on race/culture, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding race and/or culture

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my race and/or culture]

Mean

4.7

SD

1.53

Median

5.0

IQR

4.0, 5.5

Range

3, 6

I have felt the need to hide [my race and/or culture] in order to be taken seriously

Mean

4.0

SD

1.00

Median

4.0

IQR

3.5, 4.5

Range

3, 5

My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my race and/or culture]

Mean

4.0

SD

2.00

Median

4.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

Range

2, 6

I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my race and/or culture]

Mean

1.7

SD

0.58

Median

2.0

IQR

1.5, 2.0

Range

1, 2

[Due to my race and/or culture] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful

Mean

4.0

SD

2.00

Median

4.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

Range

2, 6

[Due to my race and/or culture] I have doubted my own potential

Mean

5.7

SD

0.58

Median

6.0

IQR

5.5, 6.0

Range

5, 6

[Due to my race and/or culture] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills

Mean

5.3

SD

1.15

Median

6.0

IQR

5.0, 6.0

Range

4, 6

I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in race and/or culture] to me

Mean

6.0

SD

1.00

Median

6.0

IQR

5.5, 6.5

Range

5, 7


disability / neurodivergence

The fourth EDI category is disability and/or neurodivergence. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following question: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to disability and/or neurodivergence

Question

N = 2301

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Yes

28 (12%)

No

199 (87%)

(missing)

3 (1.3%)

1n (%)


descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their disability(-ies) and/or neurodivergence, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your disabled and/or neurodivergent status (or not)


felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their disability and/or neurodivergence

Question

N = 2301

Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

Yes

6 (2.6%)

No

22 (9.6%)

(missing)

202 (88%)

1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding disability and/or neurodivergence determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.


treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the six who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their disability and/or neurodivergence has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy® community. Of those, six provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to disability/neurodivergence, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding disability

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]

Mean

2.2

SD

1.94

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 6

I have felt the need to hide [my disability and/or neurodivergence] in order to be taken seriously

Mean

2.0

SD

1.55

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]

Mean

1.5

SD

0.55

Median

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 2

I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]

Mean

1.5

SD

0.84

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.8

Range

1, 3

[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful

Mean

1.2

SD

0.41

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.0

Range

1, 2

[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have doubted my own potential

Mean

5.0

SD

2.10

Median

5.5

IQR

5.0, 6.0

Range

1, 7

[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills

Mean

4.5

SD

2.26

Median

5.0

IQR

3.3, 6.0

Range

1, 7

I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in disability and/or neurodivergence] to me

Mean

4.5

SD

2.95

Median

5.5

IQR

1.8, 7.0

Range

1, 7


written-English language dominance

The fifth EDI category is written-English language dominance. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following question: 'Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to written-English language dominance

Question

N = 2301

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Yes

140 (61%)

No

89 (39%)

(missing)

1 (0.4%)

1n (%)


descriptions

If participants chose no as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their dominant language, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to type in your dominant language (or not)


felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their non-English written-language dominance

Question

N = 2301

Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

Yes

10 (4.3%)

No

79 (34%)

(missing)

141 (61%)

1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding language dominance in written English determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.


treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the ten who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their language dominance has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy® community. Of those, ten provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to language dominance, categorised by the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding dominant language

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my dominant written language]

Mean

2.8

SD

2.10

Median

2.5

IQR

1.0, 4.0

Range

1, 7

I have felt the need to hide [my dominant written language] in order to be taken seriously

Mean

3.0

SD

2.45

Median

2.0

IQR

1.0, 4.5

Range

1, 7

My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my dominant written language]

Mean

2.2

SD

1.81

Median

2.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 7

I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my dominant written language]

Mean

1.5

SD

1.08

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.0

Range

1, 4

[Due to my dominant written language] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful

Mean

1.5

SD

1.27

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 1.0

Range

1, 5

[Due to my dominant written language] I have doubted my own potential

Mean

2.5

SD

1.72

Median

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.8

Range

1, 6

[Due to my dominant written language] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills

Mean

2.4

SD

1.96

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 3.8

Range

1, 6

I wish I saw more people in the community who used my language

Mean

4.7

SD

2.83

Median

6.5

IQR

1.5, 7.0

Range

1, 7


participant background

The first few items on the survey collected information about general background demographics, including participants’ career status, the role they typically play in their usage of PsychoPy®.

Unlike the items above that directly address dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, everyone was able to answer the questions below. However, we can still view each item with respect to whether responses varied according to the various groups that respondents identified with.

These are covered in the subsections below.

career status

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Participants had to choose from one of the following:

  • Researcher - early career (e.g. PhD, postdoc)
  • Researcher - mid career (e.g. Assistant/Associate Professor)
  • Researcher - senior (e.g. Full Professor)
  • Technical - junior
  • Technical - senior

everyone

The visualization below presents responses in descending order of frequency.

figure

Descending frequency barplot of the responses to the following question: 'Roughly speaking, what is your career status?'

table

Summary of responses to career status

Question

N = 2301

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

18 (7.8%)

(missing)

9 (3.9%)

1n (%)


interactions

gender
figure

Descending frequency barplot of the responses by gender to the following question: 'Roughly speaking, what is your career status?'

table

Summary of responses to career status by gender.

Which gender do you identify most with?

man

woman

not listed

NA

Total

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

49 (21%)

50 (22%)

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.4%)

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

41 (18%)

20 (8.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

24 (10%)

5 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

5 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

11 (4.8%)

5 (2.2%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

18 (7.8%)

NA

3 (1.3%)

5 (2.2%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

9 (3.9%)

Total

133 (58%)

85 (37%)

8 (3.5%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)

other EDI dimensions
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

Wrapped, stacked frequency barplots of the responses by EDI variables other than gender to the following question: 'Roughly speaking, what is your career status?'

tables

Summary of responses to career status by sexual orientation

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Yes

No

NA

Total

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

21 (9.1%)

83 (36%)

0 (0%)

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

4 (1.7%)

57 (25%)

2 (0.9%)

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

2 (0.9%)

25 (11%)

3 (1.3%)

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

3 (1.3%)

3 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

4 (1.7%)

14 (6.1%)

0 (0%)

18 (7.8%)

NA

2 (0.9%)

7 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

9 (3.9%)

Total

36 (16%)

189 (82%)

5 (2.2%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses to career status by race and/or culture

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Yes

No

NA

Total

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

27 (12%)

76 (33%)

1 (0.4%)

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

7 (3.0%)

56 (24%)

0 (0%)

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

3 (1.3%)

25 (11%)

2 (0.9%)

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

3 (1.3%)

14 (6.1%)

1 (0.4%)

18 (7.8%)

NA

2 (0.9%)

7 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

9 (3.9%)

Total

42 (18%)

184 (80%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses to career status by disability and/or neurodivergence

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Yes

No

NA

Total

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

14 (6.1%)

90 (39%)

0 (0%)

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

4 (1.7%)

58 (25%)

1 (0.4%)

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

1 (0.4%)

27 (12%)

2 (0.9%)

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

4 (1.7%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

4 (1.7%)

14 (6.1%)

0 (0%)

18 (7.8%)

NA

1 (0.4%)

8 (3.5%)

0 (0%)

9 (3.9%)

Total

28 (12%)

199 (87%)

3 (1.3%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses to career status by dominant written language

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Yes

No

NA

Total

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Researcher - early career

58 (25%)

46 (20%)

0 (0%)

104 (45%)

Researcher - mid career

38 (17%)

25 (11%)

0 (0%)

63 (27%)

Researcher - senior

20 (8.7%)

9 (3.9%)

1 (0.4%)

30 (13%)

Technical - junior

4 (1.7%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.6%)

Technical - senior

13 (5.7%)

5 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

18 (7.8%)

NA

7 (3.0%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

9 (3.9%)

Total

140 (61%)

89 (39%)

1 (0.4%)

230 (100%)


type of engagement with PsychoPy®

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the responses to the following prompt:

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Participants had to choose from one of the following:

  • Occasional user
  • Frequent user
  • Occasional contributor
  • Frequent contributor
  • Senior developer

everyone

The visualization below presents responses in descending order of frequency.

figure

Descending frequency barplot of everyone's responses to the following question: 'What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy?'

table

Summary of responses to engagement level

Question

N = 2301

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

99 (43%)

Frequent user

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

2 (0.9%)

(missing)

1 (0.4%)

1n (%)

interactions

gender
figure

Descending frequency barplot of responses by gender to the following question: 'What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy?'

table

Summary of responses by gender to type of engagement

Which gender do you identify most with?

man

woman

not listed

NA

Total

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

52 (23%)

42 (18%)

3 (1.3%)

2 (0.9%)

99 (43%)

Frequent user

63 (27%)

35 (15%)

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.4%)

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

15 (6.5%)

6 (2.6%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

2 (0.9%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

Total

133 (58%)

85 (37%)

8 (3.5%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)


other EDI variables
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to type of engagement

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Yes

No

NA

Total

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

17 (7.4%)

80 (35%)

2 (0.9%)

99 (43%)

Frequent user

14 (6.1%)

86 (37%)

3 (1.3%)

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

4 (1.7%)

18 (7.8%)

0 (0%)

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

Total

36 (16%)

189 (82%)

5 (2.2%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by race and/or culture to type of engagement

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Yes

No

NA

Total

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

18 (7.8%)

80 (35%)

1 (0.4%)

99 (43%)

Frequent user

21 (9.1%)

80 (35%)

2 (0.9%)

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

3 (1.3%)

18 (7.8%)

1 (0.4%)

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

Total

42 (18%)

184 (80%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to type of engagement

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Yes

No

NA

Total

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

12 (5.2%)

85 (37%)

2 (0.9%)

99 (43%)

Frequent user

10 (4.3%)

92 (40%)

1 (0.4%)

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

3 (1.3%)

19 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

2 (0.9%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

NA

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

Total

28 (12%)

199 (87%)

3 (1.3%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by dominant language to type of engagement

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Yes

No

NA

Total

What best describes your role/usage of PsychoPy? (Note: “Contributor” refers to any form of contribution, whether to the code, the documentation or supporting other users)

Occasional user

54 (23%)

44 (19%)

1 (0.4%)

99 (43%)

Frequent user

67 (29%)

36 (16%)

0 (0%)

103 (45%)

Occasional contributor

15 (6.5%)

7 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

22 (9.6%)

Frequent contributor

2 (0.9%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

3 (1.3%)

Senior developer

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

NA

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

Total

140 (61%)

89 (39%)

1 (0.4%)

230 (100%)


ways of contributing

This was a select-all-that-apply question, worded as follows:

In which way do you contribute most? (select all that apply)

Each participant could select more than one option when describing how they contribute most. For ease of visual and verbal summary, the responses were converted into new variables, one per response. It is important to note here that multiple responses from the same person were possible here (and certainly did occur).

The possible selections were as follows:

  • Improving documentation
  • Supporting other users (e.g., on the forum)
  • Fixing bugs
  • Adding new features
  • Providing translations to other languages
  • Other (describe)

It is important to keep in mind that participants may be counted as yes or no independently in any of the possible responses, which were converted to individual Boolean variables below. If they selected the response, we assigned the value selected; if they did not, we assigned the value not selected.

everyone

figure

Frequency barplot of the selections made in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses to contribution type

Respondent choice

Selected

Unselected

NA

Total

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

5 (0.4%)

225 (16%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

23 (1.7%)

207 (15%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

8 (0.6%)

222 (16%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

5 (0.4%)

225 (16%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (<0.1%)

229 (17%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

6 (0.4%)

224 (16%)

0 (0%)

230 (17%)

NA

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Total

48 (3.5%)

1,332 (97%)

0 (0%)

1,380 (100%)

descriptions

The participants were given the option to describe those other contributions. These descriptions are listed in the table below.


interactions

grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

gender
figure

Frequency barplot of the choices made by gender in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses by gender to ways of contributing

man

woman

not listed

NA

Characteristic

Selected, N = 321

Unselected, N = 7661

Selected, N = 131

Unselected, N = 4971

Selected, N = 11

Unselected, N = 471

Selected, N = 21

Unselected, N = 221

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

3 (9.4%)

130 (17%)

1 (7.7%)

84 (17%)

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

1 (50%)

3 (14%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

17 (53%)

116 (15%)

5 (38%)

80 (16%)

1 (100%)

7 (15%)

0 (0%)

4 (18%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

5 (16%)

128 (17%)

3 (23%)

82 (16%)

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (18%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

4 (13%)

129 (17%)

0 (0%)

85 (17%)

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

1 (50%)

3 (14%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (3.1%)

132 (17%)

0 (0%)

85 (17%)

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (18%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

2 (6.3%)

131 (17%)

4 (31%)

81 (16%)

0 (0%)

8 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (18%)

1n (%)


sexual orientation
figure

Frequency barplot of the selections made by sexual orientation in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to ways of contributing

No

Yes

NA

Characteristic

Selected, N = 401

Unselected, N = 1,0941

Selected, N = 81

Unselected, N = 2081

Selected, N = 01

Unselected, N = 301

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

5 (13%)

184 (17%)

0 (0%)

36 (17%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

19 (48%)

170 (16%)

4 (50%)

32 (15%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

5 (13%)

184 (17%)

3 (38%)

33 (16%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

4 (10%)

185 (17%)

1 (13%)

35 (17%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (2.5%)

188 (17%)

0 (0%)

36 (17%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

6 (15%)

183 (17%)

0 (0%)

36 (17%)

0 (NA%)

5 (17%)

1n (%)


race and/or culture
figure

Frequency barplot of the selections made by race and/or culture in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses by race and/or culture to ways of contributing

No

Yes

NA

Characteristic

Selected, N = 431

Unselected, N = 1,0611

Selected, N = 41

Unselected, N = 2481

Selected, N = 11

Unselected, N = 231

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

5 (12%)

179 (17%)

0 (0%)

42 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

20 (47%)

164 (15%)

2 (50%)

40 (16%)

1 (100%)

3 (13%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

7 (16%)

177 (17%)

1 (25%)

41 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

5 (12%)

179 (17%)

0 (0%)

42 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (2.3%)

183 (17%)

0 (0%)

42 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

5 (12%)

179 (17%)

1 (25%)

41 (17%)

0 (0%)

4 (17%)

1n (%)


disability and/or neurodivergence
figure

Frequency barplot of the selections made by disability and/or neurodivergence in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to ways of contributing

No

Yes

NA

Characteristic

Selected, N = 361

Unselected, N = 1,1581

Selected, N = 121

Unselected, N = 1561

Selected, N = 01

Unselected, N = 181

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

4 (11%)

195 (17%)

1 (8.3%)

27 (17%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

18 (50%)

181 (16%)

5 (42%)

23 (15%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

5 (14%)

194 (17%)

3 (25%)

25 (16%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

3 (8.3%)

196 (17%)

2 (17%)

26 (17%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (2.8%)

198 (17%)

0 (0%)

28 (18%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

5 (14%)

194 (17%)

1 (8.3%)

27 (17%)

0 (NA%)

3 (17%)

1n (%)


English as dominant language
figure

Frequency barplot of the selections made by whether one is dominant in written English in response to the following question: 'In which way do you contribute most?'

table

Summary of responses by written-English dominance to ways of contributing

No

Yes

NA

Characteristic

Selected, N = 181

Unselected, N = 5161

Selected, N = 301

Unselected, N = 8101

Selected, N = 01

Unselected, N = 61

Ways of contributing to PsychoPy

[I] contribute [by] improving documentation

3 (17%)

86 (17%)

2 (6.7%)

138 (17%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] supporting others

10 (56%)

79 (15%)

13 (43%)

127 (16%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] fixing bugs

2 (11%)

87 (17%)

6 (20%)

134 (17%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] adding new features

2 (11%)

87 (17%)

3 (10%)

137 (17%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

[I] contribute [by] providing translations

1 (5.6%)

88 (17%)

0 (0%)

140 (17%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

[I] contribute [in] other [ways not listed here]

0 (0%)

89 (17%)

6 (20%)

134 (17%)

0 (NA%)

1 (17%)

1n (%)


deterrents to contributing

Participants were asked the following:

To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?

Below the question was a list of the following potential causes:

  • Lack of interest
  • Lack of time
  • Lack of knowledge on how to get started
  • Lack of coding skills
  • Not confident I would be welcomed by the community
  • Not aware contributing was possible

Participants could rank each of these on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 1 indicated not at all and a 5 indicated very much.

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the rankings that participants provided for each potential cause.

Note

Note that on this 1-5 scale, the number 3 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. We set responses of 3 to the side of the stacked frequency barplots below, in yellow.

Also, the barplots are sorted along descending frequency of agreement. That is, the topmost barplot is the one with highest number of agreements, whereas the bottom-most barplot is the one with the highest number of disagreements.

everyone

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of the responses to: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?'

table

Statistical summaries of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

N = 230

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

SD

1.05

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

Range

1, 5

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.8

SD

1.25

Median

4.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

SD

1.32

Median

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

Range

1, 5

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.1

SD

1.39

Median

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

Range

1, 5

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.7

SD

1.04

Median

1.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.3

SD

1.41

Median

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

Range

1, 5

interactions

gender
figure

Boxplots of responses by gender to the the following question: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?.'

table

Statistical summaries by gender of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Which gender do you identify most with?

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

man, N = 133

not listed, N = 8

woman, N = 85

NA, N = 4

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

1.4

1.9

2.0

SD

1.01

0.52

1.15

1.00

Median

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 3.0

1.5, 2.5

Range

1, 5

1, 2

1, 5

1, 3

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.9

3.0

3.7

5.0

SD

1.19

1.60

1.31

0.00

Median

4.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

1.8, 4.3

3.0, 5.0

5.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

5, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.5

SD

1.34

1.69

1.29

1.29

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.5

IQR

2.0, 4.0

1.8, 4.3

2.0, 4.0

2.8, 4.3

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

2, 5

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.9

2.6

3.4

2.3

SD

1.36

1.51

1.37

0.58

Median

3.0

2.0

3.5

2.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

1.8, 4.0

2.0, 5.0

2.0, 2.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

2, 3

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.6

2.0

1.8

1.7

SD

1.03

1.20

1.05

0.58

Median

1.0

1.5

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.0

1.5, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 4

1, 5

1, 2

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.1

2.8

2.5

3.0

SD

1.29

1.91

1.46

2.31

Median

2.0

2.5

2.0

3.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 4.3

1.0, 4.0

1.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5


sexual orientation
figure

Boxplots of responses by sexual orientation to the the following question: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?.'

table

Statistical summaries by sexual orientation of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

No, N = 189

Yes, N = 36

NA, N = 5

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

1.7

1.5

SD

1.10

0.76

0.58

Median

1.0

2.0

1.5

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 4

1, 2

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.9

3.4

4.5

SD

1.24

1.32

0.58

Median

4.0

3.0

4.5

IQR

3.0, 5.0

2.0, 5.0

4.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

4, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.1

2.7

2.6

SD

1.32

1.28

1.52

Median

3.0

2.5

2.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 3.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.1

3.1

3.5

SD

1.38

1.44

1.29

Median

3.0

3.0

3.5

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.8, 4.3

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 5

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.7

1.8

1.5

SD

1.04

1.10

0.58

Median

1.0

1.0

1.5

IQR

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 2.3

1.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 2

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.3

2.4

2.4

SD

1.41

1.42

1.52

Median

2.0

2.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 3.3

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5


race and/or culture
figure

Boxplots of responses by race and/or culture to the the following question: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?.'

table

Statistical summaries by race and/or culture of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

No, N = 184

Yes, N = 42

NA, N = 4

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

1.9

1.3

SD

1.03

1.16

0.58

Median

1.0

2.0

1.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 1.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 2

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.8

3.8

3.7

SD

1.25

1.24

2.31

Median

4.0

4.0

5.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

3.0, 5.0

3.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

3.2

2.8

SD

1.33

1.29

1.71

Median

3.0

3.0

2.5

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

1.8, 3.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.1

3.0

3.3

SD

1.36

1.51

1.53

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.5, 4.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 5

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.6

2.0

1.3

SD

1.00

1.18

0.58

Median

1.0

2.0

1.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 1.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 2

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.2

2.7

2.3

SD

1.35

1.55

1.89

Median

2.0

2.5

1.5

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 4.0

1.0, 2.8

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5


disability and/or neurodivergence
figure

Boxplots of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to the the following question: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?.'

table

Statistical summaries by disability and/or neurodivergence of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

No, N = 199

Yes, N = 28

NA, N = 3

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

1.7

2.0

SD

1.07

0.94

0.00

Median

1.0

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.5

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 4

2, 2

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.8

3.8

4.5

SD

1.23

1.43

0.71

Median

4.0

4.0

4.5

IQR

3.0, 5.0

3.0, 5.0

4.3, 4.8

Range

1, 5

1, 5

4, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

3.0

3.3

SD

1.33

1.32

1.53

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.5, 4.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 5

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.1

2.9

4.5

SD

1.37

1.48

0.71

Median

3.0

3.0

4.5

IQR

2.0, 4.0

1.8, 4.0

4.3, 4.8

Range

1, 5

1, 5

4, 5

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.7

1.8

2.0

SD

1.06

0.99

0.00

Median

1.0

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 3.0

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 4

2, 2

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.2

2.5

3.0

SD

1.36

1.67

1.73

Median

2.0

1.5

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 4.0

2.0, 3.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 5


English as dominant language
figure

Boxplots of responses by whether English is the respondent's dominant written language to the the following question: 'To what extent do each of the following limit the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project?.'

table

Statistical summaries by whether the respondents’ dominant written language is English of responses to statements regarding deterrents to contributing.

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Statement (1 = not at all; 5 = very much)

No, N = 89

Yes, N = 140

NA, N = 1

Lack of interest limits the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.8

1.8

2.0

SD

1.11

1.02

NA

Median

1.0

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 2.8

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 2

[Lack of time] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.8

3.8

5.0

SD

1.18

1.30

NA

Median

4.0

4.0

5.0

IQR

3.0, 5.0

3.0, 5.0

5.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

5, 5

[Not knowing how to start] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

3.1

2.0

SD

1.31

1.34

NA

Median

3.0

3.0

2.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 2

[Lack of coding skills] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

3.0

3.1

5.0

SD

1.35

1.40

NA

Median

3.0

3.0

5.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

5.0, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

5, 5

[Lack of confidence in a welcome] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

1.5

1.8

2.0

SD

0.82

1.15

NA

Median

1.0

1.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 2.0

1.0, 2.0

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 2

[Unawareness that contributing was possible] limit[s] the amount you feel able to contribute to the PsychoPy project

Mean

2.1

2.4

2.0

SD

1.33

1.45

NA

Median

2.0

2.0

2.0

IQR

1.0, 3.0

1.0, 4.0

2.0, 2.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

2, 2


workshops on contributing

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Participants provided answers on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly disagree and a 5 indicated Strongly agree.

everyone

figure

Barplot of responses to the following statement: 'My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute'

table

Statistical summaries of responses to statement regarding the potential helpfulness of contributor workshops.

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

3.0

SD

1.26

Median

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

Range

1, 5

interactions

gender
figure

Boxplots of responses by gender to the question regarding whether the participant felt their engagement would increase with contributor workshops.

table

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by gender.

Which gender do you identify most with?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

man, N = 133

woman, N = 85

not listed, N = 8

NA, N = 4

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

2.9

3.2

3.0

3.0

SD

1.27

1.23

1.41

1.15

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 3.5

2.0, 4.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

1, 5

2, 4


other EDI dimensions
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

Boxplots of responses by EDI variables other than gender to the question regarding whether the participant felt their engagement would increase with contributor workshops.

tables

Summary of responses to desire for workshops by sexual orientation.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

No, N = 189

Yes, N = 36

NA, N = 5

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

2.9

3.3

3.4

SD

1.25

1.31

0.55

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.3

3.0, 4.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

3, 4


Summary of responses to desire for workshops by race and/or culture.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

No, N = 184

Yes, N = 42

NA, N = 4

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

2.9

3.3

4.3

SD

1.19

1.44

0.96

Median

3.0

3.5

4.5

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 5.0

3.8, 5.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

3, 5


Summary of responses to desire for workshops by disability and/or neurodivergence.

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

No, N = 199

Yes, N = 28

NA, N = 3

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

3.0

3.2

3.3

SD

1.28

1.17

0.58

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.8, 4.0

3.0, 3.5

Range

1, 5

1, 5

3, 4


Summary of responses to desire for workshops by written-English language dominance.

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)

No, N = 89

Yes, N = 140

NA, N = 1

My engagement with the community would be helped if workshops were provided on how to contribute

Mean

2.9

3.1

3.0

SD

1.21

1.29

NA

Median

3.0

3.0

3.0

IQR

2.0, 4.0

2.0, 4.0

3.0, 3.0

Range

1, 5

1, 5

3, 3


guidance

The third group of items on the survey collected information about documentation and the participants’ awareness of and experience with the Code of Conduct.

There were three questions concerning each of the following:

  • awareness of the Code of Conduct
  • how findable, searchable, and accessible PsychoPy’s® documentation is
  • how much they trust the Code of Conduct will be enforced

The first was answered with a simple yes or no. The latter two were statements evaluated with a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 represented Strongly disagree, and 7 represented Strongly agree.

awareness of Code of Conduct

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

everyone

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following question: 'I am aware of the community Code of Conduct' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to awareness of Code of Conduct

Question

N = 2301

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

148 (64%)

No

80 (35%)

NA

2 (0.9%)

1n (%)


interactions

gender
figure

Contingency barplot of responses by gender to the following question: 'I am aware of the community Code of Conduct' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses by gender to awareness of the Code of Conduct

Which gender do you identify most with?

man

woman

not listed

NA

Total

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

75 (33%)

62 (27%)

7 (3.0%)

4 (1.7%)

148 (64%)

No

57 (25%)

22 (9.6%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

80 (35%)

NA

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.9%)

Total

133 (58%)

85 (37%)

8 (3.5%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)

other EDI dimensions
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

Contingency barplot of responses by EDI variable (except gender) to the following question: 'I am aware of the community Code of Conduct' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to awareness of the Code of Conduct

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Yes

No

NA

Total

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

23 (10%)

122 (53%)

3 (1.3%)

148 (64%)

No

13 (5.7%)

66 (29%)

1 (0.4%)

80 (35%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

Total

36 (16%)

189 (82%)

5 (2.2%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by race and/or culture to awareness of the Code of Conduct

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Yes

No

NA

Total

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

26 (11%)

119 (52%)

3 (1.3%)

148 (64%)

No

16 (7.0%)

64 (28%)

0 (0%)

80 (35%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

Total

42 (18%)

184 (80%)

4 (1.7%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to awareness of the Code of Conduct

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Yes

No

NA

Total

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

23 (10%)

124 (54%)

1 (0.4%)

148 (64%)

No

5 (2.2%)

74 (32%)

1 (0.4%)

80 (35%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

Total

28 (12%)

199 (87%)

3 (1.3%)

230 (100%)


Summary of responses by written-English language dominance to awareness of the Code of Conduct

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Yes

No

NA

Total

I am aware of the community Code of Conduct

Yes

94 (41%)

54 (23%)

0 (0%)

148 (64%)

No

46 (20%)

34 (15%)

0 (0%)

80 (35%)

NA

0 (0%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

Total

140 (61%)

89 (39%)

1 (0.4%)

230 (100%)

findability, searchability, & accessibility

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

everyone

figure

Barplot of agreement responses to the statement regarding findability, searchability, and accessibility of documentation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding whether the documentation is findable, searchable, and accessible.

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.8

SD

1.48

Median

5.0

IQR

4.0, 6.0

Range

1, 7


interactions

gender
figure

Boxplots of responses by EDI variables by gender to the question regarding whether the participants felt the documentation for PsychoPy was easily findable, searchable, and accessible.

table

Summary of responses by gender to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Which gender do you identify most with?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

man, N = 133

woman, N = 85

not listed, N = 8

NA, N = 4

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.6

5.0

5.3

4.8

SD

1.59

1.31

0.89

1.26

Median

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 6.0

5.0, 5.3

4.5, 5.3

Range

1, 7

2, 7

4, 7

3, 6

other EDI dimensions
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

Boxplots of responses by EDI variables other than gender to the question regarding whether the participants felt the documentation for PsychoPy was easily findable, searchable, and accessible.

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 36

No, N = 189

NA, N = 5

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.7

4.8

5.4

SD

1.51

1.49

0.89

Median

5.0

5.0

6.0

IQR

4.0, 5.5

4.0, 6.0

5.0, 6.0

Range

1, 7

1, 7

4, 6


Summary of responses by race and/or culture to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 42

No, N = 184

NA, N = 4

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.5

4.8

5.3

SD

1.67

1.43

1.71

Median

5.0

5.0

5.5

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 6.0

4.5, 6.3

Range

1, 7

1, 7

3, 7


Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 28

No, N = 199

NA, N = 3

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.8

4.8

5.7

SD

1.29

1.51

0.58

Median

5.0

5.0

6.0

IQR

4.0, 5.0

4.0, 6.0

5.5, 6.0

Range

2, 7

1, 7

5, 6


Summary of responses by English-language dominance to finding the documentation easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 140

No, N = 89

NA, N = 1

I have found PsychoPy documentation to be easily findable, searchable, and accessible

Mean

4.9

4.7

5.0

SD

1.50

1.45

NA

Median

5.0

5.0

5.0

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 6.0

5.0, 5.0

Range

1, 7

1, 7

5, 5

trust in enforcement

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

everyone

figure

Barplot of agreement responses to the statement regarding trust in enforcement of the Code of Conduct.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding trust in enforcement of the Code of Conduct

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

N = 230

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.4

SD

1.34

Median

5.0

IQR

4.0, 7.0

Range

1, 7

interactions

gender
figure

Boxplots of responses by EDI dimensions by gender to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced.

table

Summary of responses by gender to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

Which gender do you identify most with?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

man, N = 133

woman, N = 85

not listed, N = 8

NA, N = 4

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.3

5.4

5.4

4.8

SD

1.31

1.37

1.60

1.71

Median

5.0

5.0

5.5

4.5

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 7.0

5.0, 6.3

3.8, 5.5

Range

1, 7

2, 7

2, 7

3, 7

other EDI variables
grouped interactions

In the figure below, the following four variables are presented as a group in a 2x2 panel, from left to right, then top to bottom: sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance.

figure

Boxplots of responses by EDI dimensions other than gender to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced.

tables

Summary of responses by sexual orientation to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 36

No, N = 189

NA, N = 5

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.1

5.4

5.0

SD

1.51

1.30

1.58

Median

5.0

5.0

5.0

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 7.0

4.0, 6.0

Range

2, 7

1, 7

3, 7


Summary of responses by race and/or culture to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 42

No, N = 184

NA, N = 4

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.0

5.4

5.3

SD

1.54

1.28

1.71

Median

5.0

5.0

5.5

IQR

4.0, 6.0

4.0, 7.0

4.5, 6.3

Range

1, 7

2, 7

3, 7


Summary of responses by disability and/or neurodivergence to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 28

No, N = 199

NA, N = 3

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.6

5.3

4.0

SD

1.50

1.32

1.00

Median

6.0

5.0

4.0

IQR

4.0, 7.0

4.0, 7.0

3.5, 4.5

Range

2, 7

1, 7

3, 5


Summary of responses by language dominance in written English to trust that the Code of Conduct would be enforced

Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?

Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

Yes, N = 140

No, N = 89

NA, N = 1

I trust that the Code of Conduct will be enforced

Mean

5.5

5.2

5.0

SD

1.36

1.31

NA

Median

6.0

5.0

5.0

IQR

4.0, 7.0

4.0, 6.0

5.0, 5.0

Range

2, 7

1, 7

5, 5


Main R Packages used

Package Version Citation
colorblindcheck 1.0.2 Nowosad (2019)
dplyr 1.1.4 Wickham, François, et al. (2023)
DT 0.30 Xie et al. (2023)
flextable 0.9.4 Gohel & Skintzos (2023)
forcats 1.0.0 Wickham (2023a)
gdata 3.0.0 Warnes et al. (2023)
ggplot2 3.4.4 Wickham (2016)
ggtext 0.1.2 Wilke & Wiernik (2022)
grateful 0.2.4 Francisco Rodriguez-Sanchez & Connor P. Jackson (2023)
gtsummary 1.7.2 Sjoberg et al. (2021)
knitr 1.45 Xie (2014); Xie (2015); Xie (2023a)
magrittr 2.0.3 Bache & Wickham (2022)
purrr 1.0.2 Wickham & Henry (2023)
readr 2.1.4 Wickham, Hester, et al. (2023)
rmarkdown 2.25 Xie et al. (2018); Xie et al. (2020); Allaire et al. (2023)
showtext 0.9.6 Qiu & See file AUTHORS for details. (2023)
sjlabelled 1.2.0 Lüdecke (2022)
sjmisc 2.8.9 Lüdecke (2018)
sjPlot 2.8.15 Lüdecke (2023)
stringr 1.5.1.9000 Wickham (2023b)
summarytools 1.0.1 Comtois (2022)
sysfonts 0.8.8 Qiu & See file AUTHORS for details. (2022)
systemfonts 1.0.5 Pedersen et al. (2023)
tibble 3.2.1 Müller & Wickham (2023)
tidyr 1.3.0 Wickham, Vaughan, et al. (2023)
tidyselect 1.2.0 Henry & Wickham (2022)
xfun 0.41 Xie (2023b)

Appendix

Colour-blindness check

The custom palettes used in this report (which are based on the colours used at Open Science Tools, Ltd. are simulated through various forms of colour blindness below to ensure that most people can distinguish the colours on the figures.

two colours

three colours

five colours

six colours

References

Allaire, J., Xie, Y., Dervieux, C., McPherson, J., Luraschi, J., Ushey, K., Atkins, A., Wickham, H., Cheng, J., Chang, W., & Iannone, R. (2023). rmarkdown: Dynamic documents for r. https://github.com/rstudio/rmarkdown
Bache, S. M., & Wickham, H. (2022). magrittr: A forward-pipe operator for r. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=magrittr
Comtois, D. (2022). summarytools: Tools to quickly and neatly summarize data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=summarytools
Francisco Rodriguez-Sanchez, & Connor P. Jackson. (2023). grateful: Facilitate citation of r packages. https://pakillo.github.io/grateful/
Gohel, D., & Skintzos, P. (2023). flextable: Functions for tabular reporting. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=flextable
Henry, L., & Wickham, H. (2022). tidyselect: Select from a set of strings. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyselect
Lüdecke, D. (2018). sjmisc: Data and variable transformation functions. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 754. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00754
Lüdecke, D. (2022). sjlabelled: Labelled data utility functions (version 1.2.0). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249215
Lüdecke, D. (2023). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot
Müller, K., & Wickham, H. (2023). tibble: Simple data frames. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tibble
Nowosad, J. (2019). Check color palettes for problems with color vision deficiency. https://jakubnowosad.com/colorblindcheck/
Pedersen, T. L., Ooms, J., & Govett, D. (2023). systemfonts: System native font finding. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=systemfonts
Qiu, Y., & See file AUTHORS for details., authors/contributors of the included fonts. (2022). sysfonts: Loading fonts into r. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sysfonts
Qiu, Y., & See file AUTHORS for details., authors/contributors of the included software. (2023). showtext: Using fonts more easily in r graphs. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=showtext
Sjoberg, D. D., Whiting, K., Curry, M., Lavery, J. A., & Larmarange, J. (2021). Reproducible summary tables with the gtsummary package. The R Journal, 13, 570–580. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2021-053
Warnes, G. R., Gorjanc, G., Magnusson, A., Andronic, L., Rogers, J., MacQueen, D., & Korosec, A. (2023). gdata: Various r programming tools for data manipulation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gdata
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
Wickham, H. (2023a). forcats: Tools for working with categorical variables (factors). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forcats
Wickham, H. (2023b). stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. https://stringr.tidyverse.org
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2023). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2023). purrr: Functional programming tools. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr
Wickham, H., Hester, J., & Bryan, J. (2023). readr: Read rectangular text data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readr
Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2023). tidyr: Tidy messy data. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr
Wilke, C. O., & Wiernik, B. M. (2022). ggtext: Improved text rendering support for “ggplot2”. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggtext
Xie, Y. (2014). knitr: A comprehensive tool for reproducible research in R. In V. Stodden, F. Leisch, & R. D. Peng (Eds.), Implementing reproducible computational research. Chapman; Hall/CRC.
Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://yihui.org/knitr/
Xie, Y. (2023a). knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in r. https://yihui.org/knitr/
Xie, Y. (2023b). xfun: Supporting functions for packages maintained by “Yihui Xie”. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xfun
Xie, Y., Allaire, J. J., & Grolemund, G. (2018). R markdown: The definitive guide. Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://bookdown.org/yihui/rmarkdown
Xie, Y., Cheng, J., & Tan, X. (2023). DT: A wrapper of the JavaScript library “DataTables”. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DT
Xie, Y., Dervieux, C., & Riederer, E. (2020). R markdown cookbook. Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://bookdown.org/yihui/rmarkdown-cookbook