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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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