Student-Parents Data
Hunt-Chu Lin
2021-07-06
## [1] "ï..Q1" "Q2" "Q3" "Q4" "Q24"
## [6] "Q24_8_TEXT" "Q23" "Q38" "Q5" "Q43"
## [11] "Q6" "Q10" "Q10_5_TEXT" "Q11" "Q12"
## [16] "Q46" "Q46_4_TEXT" "Q47" "Q47_11_TEXT" "Q45"
## [21] "Q13" "Q16" "Q17" "Q18" "Q19"
## [26] "Q21" "Q21_5_TEXT" "Q22" "Q24_1" "Q24_2"
## [31] "Q24_3" "Q24_4" "Q24_5" "Q24_6" "Q25"
## [36] "Q48" "Q26_1" "Q26_2" "Q26_3" "Q49"
## [41] "Q28_1" "Q28_2" "Q28_3" "Q28_4" "Q28_5"
## [46] "Q28_6" "Q28_7" "Q28_8" "Q28_9" "Q28_10"
## [51] "Q50" "Q27_1" "Q27_2" "Q27_3" "Q27_4"
## [56] "Q27_5" "Q27_6" "Q27_7" "Q27_8" "Q27_9"
## [61] "Q27_10" "Q27_11" "Q27_12" "Q27_13" "Q27_14"
## [66] "Q27_15" "Q27_16" "Q27_17" "Q27_18" "Q27_19"
## [71] "Q27_20" "Q27_21" "Q27_22" "Q27_23" "Q27_24"
## [76] "Q27_25" "Q27_26" "Q27_27" "Q51" "Q29_1"
## [81] "Q29_2" "Q29_3" "Q29_4" "Q29_5" "Q29_6"
## [86] "Q29_7" "Q29_8" "Q52" "Q30_1" "Q30_2"
## [91] "Q30_3" "Q30_4" "Q30_5" "Q30_6" "Q30_7"
## [96] "Q30_8" "Q30_9" "Q30_10" "Q30_11" "Q36"
## [101] "Q36_3_TEXT" "Q37" "Q54" "Q31_1" "Q31_2"
## [106] "Q31_3" "Q31_4" "Q31_5" "Q31_6" "Q31_7"
## [111] "Q31_8" "Q31_9" "Q31_10" "Q31_11" "Q31_12"
## [116] "Q31_13" "Q31_14" "Q31_15" "Q55" "Q32_1"
## [121] "Q32_2" "Q32_3" "Q32_4" "Q32_5" "Q32_6"
## [126] "Q32_7" "Q32_8" "Q32_9" "Q32_10" "Q32_11"
## [131] "Q56" "Q33_1" "Q33_2" "Q33_3" "Q33_4"
## [136] "Q33_5" "Q33_6" "Q33_7" "Q33_8" "Q33_9"
## [141] "Q33_10" "Q33_11" "Q57" "Q34_1" "Q34_2"
## [146] "Q34_3" "Q34_4" "Q34_5" "Q34_6" "Q34_7"
## [151] "Q34_8" "Q34_9" "Q34_10" "Q34_11" "Q34_12"
## [156] "Q34_13" "Q34_14" "Q34_15" "Q34_16" "Q34_17"
## [161] "Q34_18" "Q34_19" "Q34_20" "Q34_21" "Q34_22"
## [166] "Q34_23" "Q34_24" "Q34_25" "Q34_26" "Q34_27"
## [171] "Q34_28" "Q34_29" "Q34_30" "Q34_31" "Q58"
## [176] "Q59" "Q60" "Q61" "Q35_1" "Q35_2"
## [181] "Q35_3" "Q35_4" "Q35_5" "Q35_6" "Q35_7"
## [186] "Q35_8" "Q35_9" "Q35_10" "Q35_11" "Q35_12"
## [191] "Q35_13" "Q35_14" "Q35_15" "Q62"## [1] "classification" "enrollment" "department"
## [4] "Q4" "finanacial_assistance" "Q24_8_TEXT"
## [7] "Q23" "Q38" "Q5"
## [10] "Q43" "employment_status" "gender"
## [13] "Q10_5_TEXT" "age" "race"
## [16] "Q46" "Q46_4_TEXT" "Q47"
## [19] "Q47_11_TEXT" "pregnancy" "parenthood"
## [22] "numb_children" "age_children" "Q18"
## [25] "Q19" "Q21" "Q21_5_TEXT"
## [28] "Q22" "Q24_1" "Q24_2"
## [31] "Q24_3" "Q24_4" "Q24_5"
## [34] "Q24_6" "Q25" "Q48"
## [37] "Q26_1" "Q26_2" "Q26_3"
## [40] "Q49" "Q28_1" "Q28_2"
## [43] "Q28_3" "Q28_4" "Q28_5"
## [46] "Q28_6" "Q28_7" "Q28_8"
## [49] "Q28_9" "Q28_10" "Q50"
## [52] "Q27_1" "Q27_2" "Q27_3"
## [55] "Q27_4" "Q27_5" "Q27_6"
## [58] "Q27_7" "Q27_8" "Q27_9"
## [61] "Q27_10" "Q27_11" "Q27_12"
## [64] "Q27_13" "Q27_14" "Q27_15"
## [67] "Q27_16" "Q27_17" "Q27_18"
## [70] "Q27_19" "Q27_20" "Q27_21"
## [73] "Q27_22" "Q27_23" "Q27_24"
## [76] "Q27_25" "Q27_26" "Q27_27"
## [79] "Q51" "Q29_1" "Q29_2"
## [82] "Q29_3" "Q29_4" "Q29_5"
## [85] "Q29_6" "Q29_7" "Q29_8"
## [88] "Q52" "Q30_1" "Q30_2"
## [91] "Q30_3" "Q30_4" "Q30_5"
## [94] "Q30_6" "Q30_7" "Q30_8"
## [97] "Q30_9" "Q30_10" "Q30_11"
## [100] "Q36" "Q36_3_TEXT" "Q37"
## [103] "Q54" "Q31_1" "Q31_2"
## [106] "Q31_3" "Q31_4" "Q31_5"
## [109] "Q31_6" "Q31_7" "Q31_8"
## [112] "Q31_9" "Q31_10" "Q31_11"
## [115] "Q31_12" "Q31_13" "Q31_14"
## [118] "Q31_15" "Q55" "Q32_1"
## [121] "Q32_2" "Q32_3" "Q32_4"
## [124] "Q32_5" "Q32_6" "Q32_7"
## [127] "Q32_8" "Q32_9" "Q32_10"
## [130] "Q32_11" "Q56" "Q33_1"
## [133] "Q33_2" "Q33_3" "Q33_4"
## [136] "Q33_5" "Q33_6" "Q33_7"
## [139] "Q33_8" "Q33_9" "Q33_10"
## [142] "Q33_11" "Q57" "Q34_1"
## [145] "Q34_2" "Q34_3" "Q34_4"
## [148] "Q34_5" "Q34_6" "Q34_7"
## [151] "Q34_8" "Q34_9" "Q34_10"
## [154] "Q34_11" "Q34_12" "Q34_13"
## [157] "Q34_14" "Q34_15" "Q34_16"
## [160] "Q34_17" "Q34_18" "Q34_19"
## [163] "Q34_20" "Q34_21" "Q34_22"
## [166] "Q34_23" "Q34_24" "Q34_25"
## [169] "Q34_26" "Q34_27" "Q34_28"
## [172] "Q34_29" "Q34_30" "Q34_31"
## [175] "Q58" "Q59" "Q60"
## [178] "Q61" "Q35_1" "Q35_2"
## [181] "Q35_3" "Q35_4" "Q35_5"
## [184] "Q35_6" "Q35_7" "Q35_8"
## [187] "Q35_9" "Q35_10" "Q35_11"
## [190] "Q35_12" "Q35_13" "Q35_14"
## [193] "Q35_15" "Q62"## [1] "No" "Yes" ""## data$parenthood
## n missing distinct
## 738 50 2
##
## Value No Yes
## Frequency 571 167
## Proportion 0.774 0.226## data$age
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 733 55 46 0.992 26.69 9.685 18 19
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 20 22 32 41 47
##
## lowest : 17 18 19 20 21, highest: 60 62 63 65 74##
## Descriptive statistics by group
## group:
## vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range skew kurtosis se
## X1 1 0 NaN NA NA NaN NA Inf -Inf -Inf NA NA NA
## ------------------------------------------------------------
## group: No
## vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range skew kurtosis se
## X1 1 568 23.92 8.24 21 21.97 2.97 17 74 57 2.8 8.38 0.35
## ------------------------------------------------------------
## group: Yes
## vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range skew kurtosis se
## X1 1 165 36.25 7.78 35 36.03 7.41 20 65 45 0.39 0.31 0.61Scale Items
var_both: Items to which both parents and non-parents responded var_patuniq: Items unique to parents
Awareness of Resources/Policies
General
o Q26, statement 2: When I need help, I am aware of the appropriate University office/administration to seek assistance.
o Q28, statement 4: I am aware of housing, food, and health resources available in the community.
o Q28, statement 7: I know how to gain access to food programs.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = res_aware_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.68 0.68 0.6 0.41 2.1 0.02 3.4 0.86 0.38
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.64 0.68 0.72
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q26_2 0.69 0.69 0.53 0.53 2.26 0.022 NA 0.53
## Q28_4 0.49 0.49 0.33 0.33 0.97 0.036 NA 0.33
## Q28_7 0.55 0.56 0.38 0.38 1.25 0.032 NA 0.38
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q26_2 652 0.75 0.73 0.49 0.41 3.5 1.1
## Q28_4 631 0.81 0.82 0.69 0.56 3.5 1.0
## Q28_7 614 0.80 0.79 0.64 0.51 3.1 1.1
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q26_2 0.04 0.17 0.19 0.41 0.18 0.17
## Q28_4 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.46 0.14 0.20
## Q28_7 0.06 0.30 0.21 0.33 0.11 0.22## data$res_aware_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 603 185 13 0.985 3.375 0.9687 2.000 2.333
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.667 3.333 4.000 4.333 4.667
##
## lowest : 1.000000 1.333333 1.666667 2.000000 2.333333
## highest: 3.666667 4.000000 4.333333 4.666667 5.000000
##
## Value 1.000000 1.333333 1.666667 2.000000 2.333333 2.666667 3.000000
## Frequency 2 7 16 35 40 58 68
## Proportion 0.003 0.012 0.027 0.058 0.066 0.096 0.113
##
## Value 3.333333 3.666667 4.000000 4.333333 4.666667 5.000000
## Frequency 105 75 97 43 28 29
## Proportion 0.174 0.124 0.161 0.071 0.046 0.048##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: res_aware_both_mean by parenthood
## t = -3.5315, df = 601, p-value = 0.0004448
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.4525010 -0.1290791
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.308244 3.599034
## [1] 1.8288716 0.7015225 0.4696058## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_aware_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q26_2 0.28 0.43 0.26 0.74 1.7
## Q28_4 0.56 0.53 0.59 0.41 2.0
## Q28_7 0.59 0.37 0.48 0.52 1.7
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 0.74 0.60
## Proportion Var 0.25 0.20
## Cumulative Var 0.25 0.45
## Proportion Explained 0.55 0.45
## Cumulative Proportion 0.55 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.8
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 3 and the objective function was 0.51 with Chi Square of 397.82
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 620 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.008
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.66 0.59
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.43 0.35
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores -0.14 -0.31
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_aware_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q26_2 0.48 0.14 0.26 0.74 1.2
## Q28_4 0.77 0.04 0.59 0.41 1.0
## Q28_7 0.69 -0.10 0.48 0.52 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.30 0.03
## Proportion Var 0.43 0.01
## Cumulative Var 0.43 0.45
## Proportion Explained 0.97 0.03
## Cumulative Proportion 0.97 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.07
## MR2 0.07 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 3 and the objective function was 0.51 with Chi Square of 397.82
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 620 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.008
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.85 0.23
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.73 0.05
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.46 -0.89
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = res_aware_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.41 3.5 0.013 2.5 0.73 0.4
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.75 0.77 0.8
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q31_1 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.40 2.6 0.017 0.0124 0.35
## Q31_4 0.75 0.76 0.72 0.44 3.2 0.014 0.0086 0.46
## Q31_5 0.69 0.70 0.64 0.37 2.3 0.018 0.0057 0.33
## Q33_4 0.76 0.77 0.73 0.45 3.3 0.014 0.0098 0.49
## Q33_6 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.41 2.8 0.016 0.0057 0.40
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q31_1 121 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.59 2.5 1.04
## Q31_4 104 0.68 0.68 0.55 0.48 2.8 1.09
## Q31_5 118 0.78 0.81 0.76 0.66 2.3 0.89
## Q33_4 112 0.69 0.67 0.52 0.47 3.0 1.13
## Q33_6 114 0.72 0.74 0.66 0.55 2.2 0.92
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q31_1 0.09 0.52 0.21 0.10 0.07 0.85
## Q31_4 0.12 0.27 0.42 0.10 0.10 0.87
## Q31_5 0.10 0.64 0.17 0.03 0.05 0.85
## Q33_4 0.06 0.36 0.24 0.23 0.11 0.86
## Q33_6 0.18 0.58 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.86## data$res_aware_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 97 691 17 0.988 2.579 0.7892 1.60 1.80
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.20 2.60 2.80 3.28 4.24
##
## lowest : 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0, highest: 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.0
##
## Value 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
## Frequency 2 2 4 5 10 11 13 14 15 6 5
## Proportion 0.021 0.021 0.041 0.052 0.103 0.113 0.134 0.144 0.155 0.062 0.052
##
## Value 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.0
## Frequency 2 2 1 2 1 2
## Proportion 0.021 0.021 0.010 0.021 0.010 0.021
## [1] 2.6366614 0.7332933 0.7271916 0.5089791 0.3938745## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_aware_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q31_1 0.68 0.18 0.49 0.5117 1.1
## Q31_4 0.26 0.96 1.00 0.0045 1.1
## Q31_5 0.69 0.31 0.57 0.4286 1.4
## Q33_4 0.47 0.19 0.26 0.7411 1.3
## Q33_6 0.69 0.13 0.50 0.5037 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.71 1.10
## Proportion Var 0.34 0.22
## Cumulative Var 0.34 0.56
## Proportion Explained 0.61 0.39
## Cumulative Proportion 0.61 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 10 and the objective function was 1.27 with Chi Square of 993.44
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 1 and the objective function was 0.03
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 109 with the empirical chi square 1.96 with prob < 0.16
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 22.01 with prob < 2.7e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.786
## RMSEA index = 0.163 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.109 0.226
## BIC = 15.34
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.86 0.99
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.74 0.98
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.47 0.95
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_aware_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q31_1 0.71 -0.02 0.49 0.5117 1.0
## Q31_4 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0045 1.0
## Q31_5 0.68 0.12 0.57 0.4286 1.1
## Q33_4 0.48 0.05 0.26 0.7411 1.0
## Q33_6 0.74 -0.08 0.50 0.5037 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.77 1.04
## Proportion Var 0.35 0.21
## Cumulative Var 0.35 0.56
## Proportion Explained 0.63 0.37
## Cumulative Proportion 0.63 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.51
## MR2 0.51 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 10 and the objective function was 1.27 with Chi Square of 993.44
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 1 and the objective function was 0.03
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 109 with the empirical chi square 1.96 with prob < 0.16
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 22.01 with prob < 2.7e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.786
## RMSEA index = 0.163 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.109 0.226
## BIC = 15.34
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.89 1.00
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.79 1.00
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.59 0.99
Use/Access to Resources/Aid (University or General)
o Q27, statement 10: I have used student health services to address COVID-19 related health problems.
o Q27, statement 11: I have used private or community health providers to address COVID-19 health problems.
o Q27, statement 14: I have used the university’s counseling services to address stress and mental health issues during the pandemic.
o Q27, statement 15: I have used mental health or counseling services outside of the university to address mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
o Q27, statement 22: I have sufficient technology support (computer and Internet) to address my remote learning needs.
o Q27, statement 25: If available, I would use University virtual support sessions to increase my contact with peers.
o Q28, statement 8: I utilize the University food pantry (Campus Cupboard).
## Some items ( Q27_22 ) were negatively correlated with the total scale and
## probably should be reversed.
## To do this, run the function again with the 'check.keys=TRUE' option##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = res_use_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.13 1 0.027 2.8 0.63 0.13
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.45 0.5 0.55
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q27_10 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.73 0.031 0.0170 0.121
## Q27_11 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.12 0.82 0.030 0.0208 0.144
## Q27_14 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.11 0.74 0.030 0.0170 0.121
## Q27_15 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.69 0.033 0.0196 0.095
## Q27_22 0.57 0.59 0.56 0.19 1.42 0.023 0.0069 0.206
## Q27_25 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.13 0.92 0.028 0.0213 0.144
## Q28_8 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.11 0.75 0.030 0.0148 0.095
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q27_10 587 0.55 0.57 0.476 0.317 2.3 1.03
## Q27_11 610 0.58 0.52 0.387 0.280 3.1 1.29
## Q27_14 602 0.53 0.56 0.460 0.305 2.1 0.97
## Q27_15 605 0.65 0.59 0.499 0.365 2.6 1.26
## Q27_22 646 0.25 0.22 -0.086 -0.057 4.1 1.03
## Q27_25 628 0.48 0.47 0.287 0.198 3.2 1.16
## Q28_8 575 0.50 0.56 0.460 0.312 2.0 0.87
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q27_10 0.18 0.57 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.26
## Q27_11 0.08 0.35 0.10 0.29 0.18 0.23
## Q27_14 0.21 0.59 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.24
## Q27_15 0.15 0.51 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.23
## Q27_22 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.37 0.43 0.18
## Q27_25 0.06 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.16 0.20
## Q28_8 0.25 0.57 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.27## data$res_use_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 519 269 24 0.992 2.781 0.5997 1.986 2.143
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.429 2.714 3.143 3.429 3.714
##
## lowest : 1.142857 1.428571 1.571429 1.714286 1.857143
## highest: 4.000000 4.142857 4.285714 4.428571 4.857143##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: res_use_both_mean by parenthood
## t = -0.742, df = 517, p-value = 0.4584
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.15466852 0.06986391
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 2.772134 2.814536
## [1] 1.9996522 1.1335126 0.9699129 0.9006328 0.7421776 0.6833063 0.5708056## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_use_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_10 0.19 0.46 0.246 0.7542 1.3
## Q27_11 1.00 0.01 0.995 0.0048 1.0
## Q27_14 0.09 0.54 0.298 0.7017 1.1
## Q27_15 0.31 0.31 0.194 0.8065 2.0
## Q27_22 0.05 -0.16 0.027 0.9734 1.2
## Q27_25 0.08 0.30 0.094 0.9055 1.2
## Q28_8 0.11 0.57 0.339 0.6605 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.16 1.03
## Proportion Var 0.17 0.15
## Cumulative Var 0.17 0.31
## Proportion Explained 0.53 0.47
## Cumulative Proportion 0.53 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 21 and the objective function was 0.56 with Chi Square of 436.28
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 8 and the objective function was 0.05
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.04
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.06
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 582 with the empirical chi square 32.98 with prob < 6.2e-05
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 36.66 with prob < 1.3e-05
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.819
## RMSEA index = 0.067 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.046 0.09
## BIC = -16.7
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.96
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 1.00 0.77
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 1.00 0.59
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.99 0.17
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_use_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR2 MR1 h2 u2 com
## Q27_10 0.47 0.07 0.246 0.7542 1.0
## Q27_11 0.00 1.00 0.995 0.0048 1.0
## Q27_14 0.56 -0.04 0.298 0.7017 1.0
## Q27_15 0.31 0.24 0.194 0.8065 1.9
## Q27_22 -0.16 0.09 0.027 0.9734 1.5
## Q27_25 0.30 0.01 0.094 0.9055 1.0
## Q28_8 0.59 -0.03 0.339 0.6605 1.0
##
## MR2 MR1
## SS loadings 1.11 1.08
## Proportion Var 0.16 0.15
## Cumulative Var 0.16 0.31
## Proportion Explained 0.51 0.49
## Cumulative Proportion 0.51 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR2 MR1
## MR2 1.00 0.25
## MR1 0.25 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 21 and the objective function was 0.56 with Chi Square of 436.28
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 8 and the objective function was 0.05
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.04
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.06
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 582 with the empirical chi square 32.98 with prob < 6.2e-05
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 36.66 with prob < 1.3e-05
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.819
## RMSEA index = 0.067 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.046 0.09
## BIC = -16.7
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.96
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR2 MR1
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.78 1.00
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.61 1.00
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.23 0.99
## Some items ( Q33_10 Q33_11 ) were negatively correlated with the total scale and
## probably should be reversed.
## To do this, run the function again with the 'check.keys=TRUE' option##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = res_use_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.66 0.69 0.79 0.16 2.2 0.018 3.3 0.52 0.12
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.62 0.66 0.69
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_6 0.66 0.69 0.80 0.17 2.2 0.018 0.052 0.130
## Q31_6 0.63 0.67 0.78 0.15 2.0 0.020 0.046 0.130
## Q33_5 0.63 0.66 0.76 0.15 2.0 0.020 0.048 0.125
## Q33_7 0.67 0.69 0.80 0.17 2.3 0.018 0.049 0.113
## Q33_10 0.67 0.70 0.78 0.17 2.3 0.018 0.043 0.144
## Q33_11 0.68 0.71 0.79 0.18 2.4 0.017 0.040 0.145
## Q34_4 0.62 0.66 0.77 0.15 1.9 0.021 0.044 0.113
## Q34_6 0.61 0.64 0.75 0.14 1.8 0.021 0.039 0.113
## Q34_8 0.61 0.65 0.76 0.14 1.9 0.021 0.040 0.113
## Q34_10 0.62 0.65 0.77 0.15 1.9 0.021 0.040 0.113
## Q34_27 0.64 0.67 0.77 0.16 2.0 0.020 0.049 0.105
## Q34_30 0.59 0.62 0.72 0.13 1.6 0.022 0.043 0.074
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_6 102 0.44 0.36 0.22 0.185 3.0 1.34
## Q31_6 109 0.34 0.49 0.44 0.322 2.1 0.79
## Q33_5 112 0.40 0.51 0.47 0.349 2.0 0.84
## Q33_7 120 0.41 0.33 0.21 0.145 2.8 1.23
## Q33_10 112 0.32 0.29 0.22 0.126 3.9 1.12
## Q33_11 112 0.30 0.23 0.14 0.064 4.0 1.13
## Q34_4 118 0.56 0.55 0.50 0.408 4.1 0.95
## Q34_6 118 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.485 4.0 0.96
## Q34_8 119 0.61 0.58 0.57 0.438 3.9 0.99
## Q34_10 118 0.58 0.57 0.54 0.412 3.7 1.08
## Q34_27 59 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.295 3.0 0.87
## Q34_30 50 0.66 0.72 0.75 0.580 2.8 0.87
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_6 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.21 0.19 0.87
## Q31_6 0.15 0.66 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.86
## Q33_5 0.23 0.60 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.86
## Q33_7 0.10 0.42 0.13 0.23 0.12 0.85
## Q33_10 0.04 0.11 0.17 0.34 0.35 0.86
## Q33_11 0.03 0.12 0.14 0.29 0.42 0.86
## Q34_4 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.47 0.36 0.85
## Q34_6 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.46 0.32 0.85
## Q34_8 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.49 0.26 0.85
## Q34_10 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.40 0.25 0.85
## Q34_27 0.00 0.27 0.56 0.07 0.10 0.93
## Q34_30 0.02 0.34 0.52 0.04 0.08 0.94## data$res_use_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 47 741 20 0.991 3.358 0.5109 2.742 2.967
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.083 3.250 3.583 3.983 4.200
##
## lowest : 2.250000 2.500000 2.666667 2.916667 3.000000
## highest: 3.916667 4.083333 4.250000 4.500000 5.000000
## [1] 3.2462966 2.1801025 1.4523341 1.0395853 0.9325472 0.8864990 0.6364405
## [8] 0.4689384 0.4253728 0.3230186 0.2721359 0.1367290## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_use_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_6 0.02 0.28 0.079 0.921 1.0
## Q31_6 0.03 0.71 0.500 0.500 1.0
## Q33_5 0.10 0.54 0.301 0.699 1.1
## Q33_7 0.27 0.02 0.074 0.926 1.0
## Q33_10 -0.18 0.32 0.135 0.865 1.6
## Q33_11 -0.23 0.24 0.114 0.886 2.0
## Q34_4 0.62 0.03 0.388 0.612 1.0
## Q34_6 0.81 -0.01 0.664 0.336 1.0
## Q34_8 0.76 0.03 0.571 0.429 1.0
## Q34_10 0.72 0.07 0.531 0.469 1.0
## Q34_27 0.31 0.24 0.157 0.843 1.9
## Q34_30 0.38 0.88 0.924 0.076 1.4
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.57 1.87
## Proportion Var 0.21 0.16
## Cumulative Var 0.21 0.37
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 66 and the objective function was 4.31 with Chi Square of 3368.5
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 43 and the objective function was 1.3
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.12
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 83 with the empirical chi square 105.09 with prob < 4.1e-07
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1018.44 with prob < 2.1e-185
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.546
## RMSEA index = 0.17 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.161 0.179
## BIC = 731.65
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.87
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.92 0.98
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.85 0.96
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.70 0.92
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = res_use_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_6 -0.06 0.29 0.079 0.921 1.1
## Q31_6 -0.17 0.74 0.500 0.500 1.1
## Q33_5 -0.05 0.56 0.301 0.699 1.0
## Q33_7 0.27 0.01 0.074 0.926 1.0
## Q33_10 -0.28 0.33 0.135 0.865 1.9
## Q33_11 -0.30 0.25 0.114 0.886 1.9
## Q34_4 0.62 0.02 0.388 0.612 1.0
## Q34_6 0.82 -0.02 0.664 0.336 1.0
## Q34_8 0.75 0.02 0.571 0.429 1.0
## Q34_10 0.71 0.07 0.531 0.469 1.0
## Q34_27 0.25 0.25 0.157 0.843 2.0
## Q34_30 0.14 0.91 0.924 0.076 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.44 2.00
## Proportion Var 0.20 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.20 0.37
## Proportion Explained 0.55 0.45
## Cumulative Proportion 0.55 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.28
## MR2 0.28 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 66 and the objective function was 4.31 with Chi Square of 3368.5
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 43 and the objective function was 1.3
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.12
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 83 with the empirical chi square 105.09 with prob < 4.1e-07
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1018.44 with prob < 2.1e-185
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.546
## RMSEA index = 0.17 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.161 0.179
## BIC = 731.65
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.87
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.92 0.99
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.85 0.99
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.70 0.97
Positive Experiences/ Motivation/Self-Efficacy
select(data, Q24_4, Q27_2)????? (not able to conduct EFA)
o Q24, statement 4: Time management is important to me.
o Q27, statement 2: The COVID-19 pandemic has improved my academic success.
## data$positive_exp_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd
## 648 140 5 0.908 2.34 1.181
##
## lowest : 1 2 3 4 5, highest: 1 2 3 4 5
##
## Value 1 2 3 4 5
## Frequency 148 268 133 62 37
## Proportion 0.228 0.414 0.205 0.096 0.057##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: positive_exp_both_mean by parenthood
## t = -3.1762, df = 646, p-value = 0.001563
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.5281411 -0.1245943
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 2.265469 2.591837
## [1] 1##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = positive_exp_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.23 3.3 0.012 3.8 0.54 0.2
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.74 0.77 0.79
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_9 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.032 0.21
## Q30_10 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.033 0.21
## Q32_4 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.23 3.1 0.013 0.037 0.20
## Q34_11 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.039 0.20
## Q34_21 0.72 0.73 0.80 0.21 2.7 0.014 0.032 0.18
## Q34_22 0.75 0.75 0.81 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.033 0.20
## Q34_23 0.74 0.74 0.82 0.23 2.9 0.014 0.036 0.20
## Q34_26 0.74 0.75 0.82 0.23 2.9 0.013 0.039 0.20
## Q35_11 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.037 0.20
## Q35_12 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.038 0.20
## Q35_15 0.74 0.74 0.83 0.22 2.9 0.013 0.041 0.18
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_9 121 0.34 0.42 0.38 0.22 4.6 0.67
## Q30_10 120 0.35 0.42 0.38 0.22 4.7 0.60
## Q32_4 118 0.60 0.54 0.47 0.41 3.8 1.19
## Q34_11 119 0.51 0.44 0.35 0.33 2.4 1.15
## Q34_21 118 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.62 4.0 0.95
## Q34_22 118 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.47 4.3 0.73
## Q34_23 107 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.49 3.6 1.15
## Q34_26 120 0.59 0.59 0.53 0.48 3.6 0.90
## Q35_11 118 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.46 3.2 1.13
## Q35_12 120 0.54 0.57 0.52 0.42 3.8 0.87
## Q35_15 119 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.48 3.7 0.96
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_9 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.28 0.65 0.85
## Q30_10 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.19 0.77 0.85
## Q32_4 0.02 0.21 0.11 0.31 0.35 0.85
## Q34_11 0.18 0.51 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.85
## Q34_21 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.36 0.34 0.85
## Q34_22 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.40 0.47 0.85
## Q34_23 0.02 0.19 0.26 0.24 0.29 0.86
## Q34_26 0.02 0.09 0.32 0.43 0.14 0.85
## Q35_11 0.06 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.12 0.85
## Q35_12 0.01 0.09 0.17 0.55 0.18 0.85
## Q35_15 0.01 0.12 0.26 0.40 0.21 0.85## data$positive_exp_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 99 689 26 0.996 3.776 0.5823 2.909 3.164
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.455 3.818 4.091 4.382 4.555
##
## lowest : 2.000000 2.636364 2.727273 2.909091 3.000000
## highest: 4.545455 4.636364 4.818182 4.909091 5.000000
## [1] 3.4639692 2.0738492 1.5132426 0.8613880 0.7052983 0.6095184 0.5551213
## [8] 0.4681728 0.3425651 0.2136975 0.1931776## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = positive_exp_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_9 -0.03 0.50 0.25 0.75 1.0
## Q30_10 0.03 0.43 0.18 0.82 1.0
## Q32_4 0.58 0.07 0.34 0.66 1.0
## Q34_11 0.26 0.23 0.12 0.88 2.0
## Q34_21 0.85 0.14 0.75 0.25 1.1
## Q34_22 0.71 0.01 0.50 0.50 1.0
## Q34_23 0.68 0.05 0.47 0.53 1.0
## Q34_26 0.60 0.12 0.37 0.63 1.1
## Q35_11 0.15 0.67 0.46 0.54 1.1
## Q35_12 0.10 0.73 0.55 0.45 1.0
## Q35_15 0.23 0.61 0.43 0.57 1.3
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.56 1.88
## Proportion Var 0.23 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.23 0.40
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.21 with Chi Square of 3297.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.35
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.13
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 115 with the empirical chi square 132.35 with prob < 1.5e-13
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1055.59 with prob < 1.1e-199
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.489
## RMSEA index = 0.195 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.185 0.206
## BIC = 828.83
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.88
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.92 0.87
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.85 0.76
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.70 0.51## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = positive_exp_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_9 -0.12 0.52 0.25 0.75 1.1
## Q30_10 -0.05 0.44 0.18 0.82 1.0
## Q32_4 0.59 0.00 0.34 0.66 1.0
## Q34_11 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.88 2.0
## Q34_21 0.85 0.05 0.75 0.25 1.0
## Q34_22 0.73 -0.07 0.50 0.50 1.0
## Q34_23 0.69 -0.03 0.47 0.53 1.0
## Q34_26 0.60 0.05 0.37 0.63 1.0
## Q35_11 0.04 0.67 0.46 0.54 1.0
## Q35_12 -0.03 0.75 0.55 0.45 1.0
## Q35_15 0.13 0.61 0.43 0.57 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.53 1.91
## Proportion Var 0.23 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.23 0.40
## Proportion Explained 0.57 0.43
## Cumulative Proportion 0.57 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.28
## MR2 0.28 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.21 with Chi Square of 3297.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.35
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.13
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 115 with the empirical chi square 132.35 with prob < 1.5e-13
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1055.59 with prob < 1.1e-199
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.489
## RMSEA index = 0.195 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.185 0.206
## BIC = 828.83
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.88
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.88
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.86 0.78
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.72 0.55
Negative Experiences
negative_exp_gen: general negative experiences
o Q27, statement 26: The COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis that has worsened my other challenges.
o Q29, statement 8: The impact of the pandemic has been devastating to me as a student.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = negative_exp_gen_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.71 0.71 0.55 0.55 2.5 0.02 3.5 1.1 0.55
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.67 0.71 0.75
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q27_26 0.49 0.55 0.31 0.55 1.2 NA 0 0.55
## Q29_8 0.63 0.55 0.31 0.55 1.2 NA 0 0.55
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q27_26 638 0.87 0.88 0.66 0.55 3.7 1.1
## Q29_8 649 0.90 0.88 0.66 0.55 3.2 1.3
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q27_26 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.30 0.19
## Q29_8 0.07 0.28 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.18## data$negative_exp_gen_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd
## 633 155 9 0.98 3.503 1.19
##
## lowest : 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0, highest: 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
##
## Value 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
## Frequency 10 17 61 69 104 107 87 74 104
## Proportion 0.016 0.027 0.096 0.109 0.164 0.169 0.137 0.117 0.164##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: negative_exp_gen_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 4.8946, df = 631, p-value = 1.253e-06
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.2864378 0.6702769
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.611224 3.132867
## [1] 1.5567305 0.4432695## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = negative_exp_gen_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_26 0.75 0 0.56 0.44 1
## Q29_8 0.75 0 0.56 0.44 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.11 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.56 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.56 0.56
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.37 with Chi Square of 291.41
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 638 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.003
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.85 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.72 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.43 -1## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = negative_exp_gen_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_26 0.75 0 0.56 0.44 1
## Q29_8 0.75 0 0.56 0.44 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.11 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.56 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.56 0.56
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1 0
## MR2 0 1
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.37 with Chi Square of 291.41
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 638 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.003
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.85 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.72 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.43 -1
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = negative_exp_gen_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.23 3.3 0.012 3.8 0.54 0.2
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.74 0.77 0.79
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_9 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.032 0.21
## Q30_10 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.033 0.21
## Q32_4 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.23 3.1 0.013 0.037 0.20
## Q34_11 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.25 3.3 0.012 0.039 0.20
## Q34_21 0.72 0.73 0.80 0.21 2.7 0.014 0.032 0.18
## Q34_22 0.75 0.75 0.81 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.033 0.20
## Q34_23 0.74 0.74 0.82 0.23 2.9 0.014 0.036 0.20
## Q34_26 0.74 0.75 0.82 0.23 2.9 0.013 0.039 0.20
## Q35_11 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.037 0.20
## Q35_12 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.23 3.0 0.013 0.038 0.20
## Q35_15 0.74 0.74 0.83 0.22 2.9 0.013 0.041 0.18
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_9 121 0.34 0.42 0.38 0.22 4.6 0.67
## Q30_10 120 0.35 0.42 0.38 0.22 4.7 0.60
## Q32_4 118 0.60 0.54 0.47 0.41 3.8 1.19
## Q34_11 119 0.51 0.44 0.35 0.33 2.4 1.15
## Q34_21 118 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.62 4.0 0.95
## Q34_22 118 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.47 4.3 0.73
## Q34_23 107 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.49 3.6 1.15
## Q34_26 120 0.59 0.59 0.53 0.48 3.6 0.90
## Q35_11 118 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.46 3.2 1.13
## Q35_12 120 0.54 0.57 0.52 0.42 3.8 0.87
## Q35_15 119 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.48 3.7 0.96
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_9 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.28 0.65 0.85
## Q30_10 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.19 0.77 0.85
## Q32_4 0.02 0.21 0.11 0.31 0.35 0.85
## Q34_11 0.18 0.51 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.85
## Q34_21 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.36 0.34 0.85
## Q34_22 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.40 0.47 0.85
## Q34_23 0.02 0.19 0.26 0.24 0.29 0.86
## Q34_26 0.02 0.09 0.32 0.43 0.14 0.85
## Q35_11 0.06 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.12 0.85
## Q35_12 0.01 0.09 0.17 0.55 0.18 0.85
## Q35_15 0.01 0.12 0.26 0.40 0.21 0.85## data$negative_exp_gen_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 99 689 26 0.996 3.776 0.5823 2.909 3.164
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.455 3.818 4.091 4.382 4.555
##
## lowest : 2.000000 2.636364 2.727273 2.909091 3.000000
## highest: 4.545455 4.636364 4.818182 4.909091 5.000000
## [1] 3.4639692 2.0738492 1.5132426 0.8613880 0.7052983 0.6095184 0.5551213
## [8] 0.4681728 0.3425651 0.2136975 0.1931776## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = negative_exp_gen_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_9 -0.03 0.50 0.25 0.75 1.0
## Q30_10 0.03 0.43 0.18 0.82 1.0
## Q32_4 0.58 0.07 0.34 0.66 1.0
## Q34_11 0.26 0.23 0.12 0.88 2.0
## Q34_21 0.85 0.14 0.75 0.25 1.1
## Q34_22 0.71 0.01 0.50 0.50 1.0
## Q34_23 0.68 0.05 0.47 0.53 1.0
## Q34_26 0.60 0.12 0.37 0.63 1.1
## Q35_11 0.15 0.67 0.46 0.54 1.1
## Q35_12 0.10 0.73 0.55 0.45 1.0
## Q35_15 0.23 0.61 0.43 0.57 1.3
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.56 1.88
## Proportion Var 0.23 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.23 0.40
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.21 with Chi Square of 3297.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.35
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.13
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 115 with the empirical chi square 132.35 with prob < 1.5e-13
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1055.59 with prob < 1.1e-199
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.489
## RMSEA index = 0.195 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.185 0.206
## BIC = 828.83
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.88
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.92 0.87
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.85 0.76
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.70 0.51## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = negative_exp_gen_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_9 -0.12 0.52 0.25 0.75 1.1
## Q30_10 -0.05 0.44 0.18 0.82 1.0
## Q32_4 0.59 0.00 0.34 0.66 1.0
## Q34_11 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.88 2.0
## Q34_21 0.85 0.05 0.75 0.25 1.0
## Q34_22 0.73 -0.07 0.50 0.50 1.0
## Q34_23 0.69 -0.03 0.47 0.53 1.0
## Q34_26 0.60 0.05 0.37 0.63 1.0
## Q35_11 0.04 0.67 0.46 0.54 1.0
## Q35_12 -0.03 0.75 0.55 0.45 1.0
## Q35_15 0.13 0.61 0.43 0.57 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.53 1.91
## Proportion Var 0.23 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.23 0.40
## Proportion Explained 0.57 0.43
## Cumulative Proportion 0.57 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.28
## MR2 0.28 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.21 with Chi Square of 3297.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.35
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.1
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.13
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 115 with the empirical chi square 132.35 with prob < 1.5e-13
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1055.59 with prob < 1.1e-199
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.489
## RMSEA index = 0.195 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.185 0.206
## BIC = 828.83
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.88
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.88
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.86 0.78
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.72 0.55
Academic Difficulties
o Q24, statement 6: I miss multiple classes each semester.
o Q27, statement 1: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted my academic success.
o Q27, statement 3: The transition to remote instruction due to the COVID crisis resulted in increased academic challenges.
o Q27, statement 19: If my academic performance impacts my financial assistance, I will not be able to continue my education.
o Q27, statement 21: I need time to recover academically from the impact of the pandemic.
o Q29, statement 2: I am anxious about my ability to continue my education.
o Q29, statement 3: I am concerned about being on track to graduate.
o Q29, statement 4: I am considering leaving school due to the challenges resulting from the pandemic.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = academic_diffty_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.39 5.2 0.0084 3.2 0.88 0.41
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.82 0.84 0.86
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q24_6 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.44 5.5 0.0082 0.020 0.47
## Q27_1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.37 4.2 0.0101 0.024 0.40
## Q27_3 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.43 5.3 0.0084 0.018 0.46
## Q27_19 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.40 4.6 0.0095 0.025 0.40
## Q27_21 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.36 4.0 0.0106 0.022 0.36
## Q29_2 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.37 4.2 0.0103 0.020 0.36
## Q29_3 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.37 4.2 0.0103 0.021 0.36
## Q29_4 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.40 4.6 0.0094 0.024 0.40
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q24_6 622 0.49 0.50 0.37 0.35 2.1 1.2
## Q27_1 647 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.66 3.6 1.3
## Q27_3 628 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.39 3.9 1.2
## Q27_19 605 0.69 0.68 0.61 0.56 3.4 1.3
## Q27_21 635 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.72 3.4 1.3
## Q29_2 648 0.77 0.77 0.75 0.68 3.3 1.3
## Q29_3 648 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.67 3.4 1.4
## Q29_4 644 0.67 0.67 0.60 0.56 2.5 1.2
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q24_6 0.37 0.33 0.13 0.11 0.05 0.21
## Q27_1 0.05 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.18
## Q27_3 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.41 0.20
## Q27_19 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.27 0.23
## Q27_21 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.19
## Q29_2 0.07 0.28 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.18
## Q29_3 0.08 0.26 0.12 0.23 0.30 0.18
## Q29_4 0.17 0.48 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.18## data$academic_diffty_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 542 246 33 0.998 3.27 0.9834 1.875 2.125
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.625 3.250 3.875 4.500 4.625
##
## lowest : 1.000 1.125 1.250 1.375 1.500, highest: 4.500 4.625 4.750 4.875 5.000##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: academic_diffty_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 3.0281, df = 540, p-value = 0.002578
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.09707101 0.45557534
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.325635 3.049312
## [1] 3.8767240 1.0989572 0.8462805 0.5814680 0.5405715 0.4514044 0.3307097
## [8] 0.2738848## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = academic_diffty_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q24_6 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.87 2.0
## Q27_1 0.34 0.80 0.76 0.24 1.4
## Q27_3 0.10 0.62 0.39 0.61 1.1
## Q27_19 0.60 0.24 0.42 0.58 1.3
## Q27_21 0.54 0.60 0.65 0.35 2.0
## Q29_2 0.83 0.19 0.73 0.27 1.1
## Q29_3 0.71 0.30 0.59 0.41 1.4
## Q29_4 0.63 0.18 0.43 0.57 1.2
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.43 1.67
## Proportion Var 0.30 0.21
## Cumulative Var 0.30 0.51
## Proportion Explained 0.59 0.41
## Cumulative Proportion 0.59 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.4
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 28 and the objective function was 3.07 with Chi Square of 2406.78
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 13 and the objective function was 0.06
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.02
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.03
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 618 with the empirical chi square 12.85 with prob < 0.46
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 47.67 with prob < 7.4e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.969
## RMSEA index = 0.058 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.041 0.076
## BIC = -39.03
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.90 0.87
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.80 0.75
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.61 0.50
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = academic_diffty_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q24_6 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.87 2.0
## Q27_1 0.06 0.84 0.76 0.24 1.0
## Q27_3 -0.15 0.70 0.39 0.61 1.1
## Q27_19 0.60 0.07 0.42 0.58 1.0
## Q27_21 0.37 0.53 0.65 0.35 1.8
## Q29_2 0.89 -0.06 0.73 0.27 1.0
## Q29_3 0.69 0.12 0.59 0.41 1.1
## Q29_4 0.65 0.00 0.43 0.57 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.41 1.69
## Proportion Var 0.30 0.21
## Cumulative Var 0.30 0.51
## Proportion Explained 0.59 0.41
## Cumulative Proportion 0.59 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.59
## MR2 0.59 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 28 and the objective function was 3.07 with Chi Square of 2406.78
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 13 and the objective function was 0.06
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.02
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.03
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 618 with the empirical chi square 12.85 with prob < 0.46
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 47.67 with prob < 7.4e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.969
## RMSEA index = 0.058 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.041 0.076
## BIC = -39.03
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.91
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.87 0.84
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.73 0.67
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = academic_diffty_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.45 3.2 0.013 3.3 0.95 0.43
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.74 0.77 0.79
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_3 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.43 2.2 0.019 0.0042 0.44
## Q30_4 0.66 0.66 0.57 0.39 1.9 0.021 0.0011 0.40
## Q30_7 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.49 2.9 0.015 0.0067 0.48
## Q35_4 0.73 0.73 0.66 0.48 2.7 0.016 0.0088 0.44
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_3 114 0.79 0.79 0.69 0.60 3.4 1.3
## Q30_4 111 0.83 0.82 0.75 0.65 3.2 1.3
## Q30_7 119 0.73 0.72 0.56 0.49 3.8 1.2
## Q35_4 109 0.73 0.74 0.59 0.52 2.8 1.1
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_3 0.03 0.34 0.14 0.24 0.25 0.86
## Q30_4 0.06 0.38 0.12 0.22 0.23 0.86
## Q30_7 0.02 0.18 0.16 0.29 0.36 0.85
## Q35_4 0.07 0.46 0.18 0.20 0.08 0.86## data$academic_diffty_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 99 689 15 0.993 3.275 1.076 2.00 2.00
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.50 3.25 4.00 4.50 4.75
##
## lowest : 1.00 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50, highest: 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00
##
## Value 1.00 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00
## Frequency 1 1 12 6 7 11 10 6 8 6 10
## Proportion 0.010 0.010 0.121 0.061 0.071 0.111 0.101 0.061 0.081 0.061 0.101
##
## Value 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00
## Frequency 6 6 5 4
## Proportion 0.061 0.061 0.051 0.040
## [1] 2.3359719 0.6420698 0.6144238 0.4075346## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = academic_diffty_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_3 0.69 0.31 0.57 0.43 1.4
## Q30_4 0.65 0.44 0.62 0.38 1.7
## Q30_7 0.41 0.38 0.31 0.69 2.0
## Q35_4 0.30 0.63 0.49 0.51 1.4
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.16 0.82
## Proportion Var 0.29 0.21
## Cumulative Var 0.29 0.50
## Proportion Explained 0.59 0.41
## Cumulative Proportion 0.59 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.6
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 6 and the objective function was 0.98 with Chi Square of 768.61
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -1 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 109 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.008
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.76 0.66
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.58 0.44
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.16 -0.13
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = academic_diffty_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_3 0.81 -0.07 0.57 0.43 1.0
## Q30_4 0.67 0.14 0.62 0.38 1.1
## Q30_7 0.36 0.23 0.31 0.69 1.7
## Q35_4 0.03 0.67 0.49 0.51 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.34 0.64
## Proportion Var 0.34 0.16
## Cumulative Var 0.34 0.50
## Proportion Explained 0.68 0.32
## Cumulative Proportion 0.68 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.78
## MR2 0.78 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 6 and the objective function was 0.98 with Chi Square of 768.61
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -1 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 109 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.008
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.88 0.82
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.78 0.67
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.57 0.35
Financial Insecurity
o Q27, statement 4: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I experienced a loss of income in my household – personal, spouse/partner, family member, etc.
o Q27, statement 20: I need time to recover financially from the impact of the pandemic.
o Q27, statement 19: If my academic performance impacts my financial assistance, I will not be able to continue my education.
o Q28, statement 1: I struggle with financial support to meet my day-to-day needs.
o Q28, statement 6: I have experienced concern where my next meal will come from while attending the University.
o Q29, statement 1: I am more concerned about my personal finances than I was prior to the pandemic.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = financial_ins_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.45 5 0.0093 3.1 0.91 0.45
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.81 0.83 0.85
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q27_4 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.47 4.4 0.010 0.0085 0.46
## Q27_20 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.41 3.5 0.013 0.0070 0.41
## Q27_19 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.48 4.6 0.010 0.0072 0.50
## Q28_1 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.44 3.9 0.011 0.0113 0.43
## Q28_6 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.48 4.5 0.010 0.0081 0.50
## Q29_1 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.44 3.9 0.012 0.0097 0.43
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q27_4 633 0.73 0.70 0.62 0.56 3.3 1.3
## Q27_20 623 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.74 3.2 1.2
## Q27_19 605 0.69 0.67 0.58 0.52 3.4 1.3
## Q28_1 646 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.63 2.8 1.2
## Q28_6 627 0.67 0.69 0.60 0.53 2.1 1.0
## Q29_1 646 0.77 0.77 0.71 0.65 3.8 1.2
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q27_4 0.07 0.33 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.20
## Q27_20 0.06 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21
## Q27_19 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.27 0.23
## Q28_1 0.11 0.37 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.18
## Q28_6 0.24 0.52 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.20
## Q29_1 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.30 0.35 0.18## data$financial_ins_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 552 236 24 0.997 3.122 1.01 1.667 2.000
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.500 3.167 3.833 4.333 4.500
##
## lowest : 1.000000 1.166667 1.500000 1.666667 1.833333
## highest: 4.333333 4.500000 4.666667 4.833333 5.000000##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: financial_ins_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 0.89819, df = 550, p-value = 0.3695
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.09790313 0.26287022
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.139464 3.056980
## [1] 3.2969098 0.7752434 0.7082154 0.4530788 0.4213952 0.3451574## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = financial_ins_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_4 0.57 0.29 0.41 0.59 1.5
## Q27_20 0.77 0.37 0.73 0.27 1.5
## Q27_19 0.50 0.30 0.34 0.66 1.6
## Q28_1 0.35 0.74 0.68 0.32 1.4
## Q28_6 0.28 0.62 0.46 0.54 1.4
## Q29_1 0.69 0.30 0.57 0.43 1.4
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.83 1.34
## Proportion Var 0.31 0.22
## Cumulative Var 0.31 0.53
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.5
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 15 and the objective function was 2.13 with Chi Square of 1667.32
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 4 and the objective function was 0.04
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 612 with the empirical chi square 12.93 with prob < 0.012
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 33.14 with prob < 1.1e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.934
## RMSEA index = 0.096 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.068 0.128
## BIC = 6.46
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.84 0.79
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.71 0.62
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.42 0.25
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = financial_ins_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_4 0.62 0.02 0.41 0.59 1.0
## Q27_20 0.85 0.01 0.73 0.27 1.0
## Q27_19 0.51 0.09 0.34 0.66 1.1
## Q28_1 0.01 0.81 0.68 0.32 1.0
## Q28_6 -0.01 0.69 0.46 0.54 1.0
## Q29_1 0.78 -0.04 0.57 0.43 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.00 1.17
## Proportion Var 0.33 0.20
## Cumulative Var 0.33 0.53
## Proportion Explained 0.63 0.37
## Cumulative Proportion 0.63 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.77
## MR2 0.77 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 15 and the objective function was 2.13 with Chi Square of 1667.32
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 4 and the objective function was 0.04
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 612 with the empirical chi square 12.93 with prob < 0.012
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 33.14 with prob < 1.1e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.934
## RMSEA index = 0.096 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.068 0.128
## BIC = 6.46
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.89
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.86 0.80
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.71 0.60
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = financial_ins_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.45 5 0.0093 3.1 0.91 0.45
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.81 0.83 0.85
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q27_4 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.47 4.4 0.010 0.0085 0.46
## Q27_20 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.41 3.5 0.013 0.0070 0.41
## Q27_19 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.48 4.6 0.010 0.0072 0.50
## Q28_1 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.44 3.9 0.011 0.0113 0.43
## Q28_6 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.48 4.5 0.010 0.0081 0.50
## Q29_1 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.44 3.9 0.012 0.0097 0.43
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q27_4 633 0.73 0.70 0.62 0.56 3.3 1.3
## Q27_20 623 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.74 3.2 1.2
## Q27_19 605 0.69 0.67 0.58 0.52 3.4 1.3
## Q28_1 646 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.63 2.8 1.2
## Q28_6 627 0.67 0.69 0.60 0.53 2.1 1.0
## Q29_1 646 0.77 0.77 0.71 0.65 3.8 1.2
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q27_4 0.07 0.33 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.20
## Q27_20 0.06 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21
## Q27_19 0.06 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.27 0.23
## Q28_1 0.11 0.37 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.18
## Q28_6 0.24 0.52 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.20
## Q29_1 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.30 0.35 0.18## data$financial_ins_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 552 236 24 0.997 3.122 1.01 1.667 2.000
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.500 3.167 3.833 4.333 4.500
##
## lowest : 1.000000 1.166667 1.500000 1.666667 1.833333
## highest: 4.333333 4.500000 4.666667 4.833333 5.000000
## [1] 3.2969098 0.7752434 0.7082154 0.4530788 0.4213952 0.3451574## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = financial_ins_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_4 0.57 0.29 0.41 0.59 1.5
## Q27_20 0.77 0.37 0.73 0.27 1.5
## Q27_19 0.50 0.30 0.34 0.66 1.6
## Q28_1 0.35 0.74 0.68 0.32 1.4
## Q28_6 0.28 0.62 0.46 0.54 1.4
## Q29_1 0.69 0.30 0.57 0.43 1.4
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.83 1.34
## Proportion Var 0.31 0.22
## Cumulative Var 0.31 0.53
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.5
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 15 and the objective function was 2.13 with Chi Square of 1667.32
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 4 and the objective function was 0.04
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 612 with the empirical chi square 12.93 with prob < 0.012
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 33.14 with prob < 1.1e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.934
## RMSEA index = 0.096 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.068 0.128
## BIC = 6.46
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.84 0.79
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.71 0.62
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.42 0.25
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = financial_ins_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_4 0.62 0.02 0.41 0.59 1.0
## Q27_20 0.85 0.01 0.73 0.27 1.0
## Q27_19 0.51 0.09 0.34 0.66 1.1
## Q28_1 0.01 0.81 0.68 0.32 1.0
## Q28_6 -0.01 0.69 0.46 0.54 1.0
## Q29_1 0.78 -0.04 0.57 0.43 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.00 1.17
## Proportion Var 0.33 0.20
## Cumulative Var 0.33 0.53
## Proportion Explained 0.63 0.37
## Cumulative Proportion 0.63 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.77
## MR2 0.77 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 15 and the objective function was 2.13 with Chi Square of 1667.32
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 4 and the objective function was 0.04
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 612 with the empirical chi square 12.93 with prob < 0.012
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 33.14 with prob < 1.1e-06
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.934
## RMSEA index = 0.096 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.068 0.128
## BIC = 6.46
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.89
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.86 0.80
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.71 0.60
Housing Insecurity
o Q28, statement 9: I have experienced housing insecurity while attending the University.
o Q28, statement 10: I have experienced homelessness while attending the University.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = housing_ins_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.65 0.69 0.52 0.52 2.2 0.022 2 0.8 0.52
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.61 0.65 0.7
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q28_9 0.78 0.52 0.27 0.52 1.1 NA 0 0.52
## Q28_10 0.35 0.52 0.27 0.52 1.1 NA 0 0.52
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q28_9 595 0.92 0.87 0.63 0.52 2.2 1.06
## Q28_10 597 0.82 0.87 0.63 0.52 1.7 0.71
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q28_9 0.24 0.49 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.24
## Q28_10 0.39 0.54 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.24## data$housing_ins_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd
## 580 208 9 0.881 1.966 0.8026
##
## lowest : 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0, highest: 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
##
## Value 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
## Frequency 142 35 272 42 58 14 10 2 5
## Proportion 0.245 0.060 0.469 0.072 0.100 0.024 0.017 0.003 0.009##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: housing_ins_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 1.4233, df = 578, p-value = 0.1552
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.04157049 0.26039434
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 1.991091 1.881679
## [1] 1.5282795 0.4717205## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = housing_ins_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q28_9 0.73 0 0.53 0.47 1
## Q28_10 0.73 0 0.53 0.47 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.06 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.53 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.53 0.53
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.33 with Chi Square of 257.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 588 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.004
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.83 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.69 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.38 -1## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = housing_ins_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q28_9 0.73 0 0.53 0.47 1
## Q28_10 0.73 0 0.53 0.47 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.06 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.53 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.53 0.53
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1 0
## MR2 0 1
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.33 with Chi Square of 257.04
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 588 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.004
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.83 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.69 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.38 -1
Physical Health Issues
o Q27, statement 8: I am more concerned about my physical health since the COVID-19 pandemic.
o Q27, statement 9: I have experienced more physical health problems since the COVID-19 pandemic.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = physical_health_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.48 1.9 0.025 3.3 1 0.48
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.6 0.65 0.7
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q27_8 0.47 0.48 0.23 0.48 0.93 NA 0 0.48
## Q27_9 0.49 0.48 0.23 0.48 0.93 NA 0 0.48
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q27_8 650 0.86 0.86 0.6 0.48 3.8 1.2
## Q27_9 644 0.86 0.86 0.6 0.48 2.8 1.2
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q27_8 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.33 0.34 0.18
## Q27_9 0.10 0.44 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.18## data$physical_health_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd
## 644 144 9 0.976 3.269 1.16
##
## lowest : 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0, highest: 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
##
## Value 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
## Frequency 19 14 91 64 143 108 88 42 75
## Proportion 0.030 0.022 0.141 0.099 0.222 0.168 0.137 0.065 0.116##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: physical_health_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 0.41033, df = 642, p-value = 0.6817
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.1497997 0.2289413
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.277666 3.238095
## [1] 1.4835548 0.5164452## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = physical_health_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_8 0.7 0 0.48 0.52 1
## Q27_9 0.7 0 0.48 0.52 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 0.97 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.48 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.48 0.48
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.27 with Chi Square of 209.21
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 645 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.005
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.81 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.65 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.30 -1## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = physical_health_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q27_8 0.7 0 0.48 0.52 1
## Q27_9 0.7 0 0.48 0.52 1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 0.97 0.00
## Proportion Var 0.48 0.00
## Cumulative Var 0.48 0.48
## Proportion Explained 1.00 0.00
## Cumulative Proportion 1.00 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1 0
## MR2 0 1
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 1 and the objective function was 0.27 with Chi Square of 209.21
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 645 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.005
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.81 0
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.65 0
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.30 -1
Psychosocial and Emotional Issues
o Q24, statement 1: I feel isolated as a student on the UL campus.
o Q24, statement 3: I feel other students are not interested in connecting with me.
o Q27, statement 7: The COVID-19 pandemic has added to the overall stress within my home.
o Q27, statement 12: I am more concerned about my mental/emotional health since the COVID-19 pandemic.
o Q27, statement 13: I have experienced more emotional/mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
o Q29, statement 5: I feel a sense of uncertainly about recovering from the pandemic challenges.
o Q29, statement 6: I feel a sense of uncertainty about the future for me and my family.
o Q29, statement 7: I am struggling to find moments of joy during the pandemic.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = psycsocemo_health_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.42 5.7 0.0078 3.5 0.84 0.43
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.84 0.85 0.87
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q24_1 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.44 5.6 0.0080 0.023 0.47
## Q24_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.46 6.0 0.0078 0.016 0.47
## Q27_7 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.43 5.2 0.0087 0.022 0.43
## Q27_12 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.41 4.8 0.0091 0.018 0.43
## Q27_13 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.40 4.7 0.0092 0.018 0.43
## Q29_5 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.39 4.5 0.0097 0.019 0.43
## Q29_6 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.41 4.8 0.0092 0.020 0.44
## Q29_7 0.83 0.82 0.84 0.40 4.7 0.0094 0.025 0.43
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q24_1 598 0.61 0.61 0.52 0.47 2.9 1.19
## Q24_3 614 0.52 0.54 0.44 0.39 2.8 1.05
## Q27_7 648 0.66 0.67 0.59 0.55 4.2 0.99
## Q27_12 644 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.64 4.0 1.12
## Q27_13 649 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.66 3.9 1.19
## Q29_5 644 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.71 3.4 1.25
## Q29_6 642 0.76 0.74 0.71 0.65 3.3 1.29
## Q29_7 647 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.67 3.3 1.23
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q24_1 0.11 0.32 0.24 0.21 0.11 0.24
## Q24_3 0.09 0.34 0.29 0.23 0.05 0.22
## Q27_7 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.32 0.48 0.18
## Q27_12 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.29 0.45 0.18
## Q27_13 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.29 0.42 0.18
## Q29_5 0.06 0.27 0.17 0.28 0.23 0.18
## Q29_6 0.06 0.29 0.16 0.25 0.24 0.19
## Q29_7 0.05 0.28 0.19 0.26 0.22 0.18## data$psycsocemo_health_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 557 231 30 0.998 3.515 0.9263 2.100 2.375
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.000 3.625 4.125 4.500 4.750
##
## lowest : 1.375 1.500 1.625 1.750 1.875, highest: 4.500 4.625 4.750 4.875 5.000##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: psycsocemo_health_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 3.097, df = 555, p-value = 0.002054
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.09886643 0.44174145
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.565542 3.295238
## [1] 4.0058452 1.1305285 0.8276657 0.5683660 0.5254475 0.4563154 0.2674405
## [8] 0.2183912## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = psycsocemo_health_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q24_1 0.52 0.17 0.30 0.70 1.2
## Q24_3 0.47 0.10 0.23 0.77 1.1
## Q27_7 0.39 0.46 0.37 0.63 1.9
## Q27_12 0.26 0.82 0.74 0.26 1.2
## Q27_13 0.27 0.85 0.79 0.21 1.2
## Q29_5 0.71 0.38 0.65 0.35 1.5
## Q29_6 0.68 0.32 0.56 0.44 1.4
## Q29_7 0.60 0.42 0.53 0.47 1.8
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.11 2.07
## Proportion Var 0.26 0.26
## Cumulative Var 0.26 0.52
## Proportion Explained 0.50 0.50
## Cumulative Proportion 0.50 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.4
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 28 and the objective function was 3.51 with Chi Square of 2751.73
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 13 and the objective function was 0.28
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.06
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 620 with the empirical chi square 123.58 with prob < 3.9e-20
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 222.29 with prob < 3.5e-40
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.834
## RMSEA index = 0.143 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.127 0.16
## BIC = 135.59
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.98
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.85 0.90
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.73 0.81
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.45 0.63
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = psycsocemo_health_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q24_1 0.61 -0.10 0.30 0.70 1.1
## Q24_3 0.57 -0.15 0.23 0.77 1.1
## Q27_7 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.63 2.0
## Q27_12 0.01 0.86 0.74 0.26 1.0
## Q27_13 0.01 0.88 0.79 0.21 1.0
## Q29_5 0.77 0.05 0.65 0.35 1.0
## Q29_6 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.44 1.0
## Q29_7 0.61 0.16 0.53 0.47 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.40 1.77
## Proportion Var 0.30 0.22
## Cumulative Var 0.30 0.52
## Proportion Explained 0.58 0.42
## Cumulative Proportion 0.58 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.68
## MR2 0.68 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 28 and the objective function was 3.51 with Chi Square of 2751.73
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 13 and the objective function was 0.28
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.06
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 620 with the empirical chi square 123.58 with prob < 3.9e-20
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 222.29 with prob < 3.5e-40
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.834
## RMSEA index = 0.143 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.127 0.16
## BIC = 135.59
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.98
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.92 0.94
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.85 0.88
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.70 0.77
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = psycsocemo_health_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.27 1.8 0.02 3.4 0.79 0.23
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.6 0.64 0.68
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_1 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.22 1.1 0.028 0.0054 0.22
## Q30_2 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.28 1.5 0.023 0.0068 0.26
## Q34_20 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.29 1.6 0.022 0.0228 0.26
## Q34_24 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.30 1.7 0.022 0.0209 0.27
## Q35_7 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.25 1.4 0.025 0.0164 0.22
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_1 120 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.53 3.8 1.2
## Q30_2 113 0.64 0.62 0.51 0.38 2.9 1.2
## Q34_20 118 0.63 0.61 0.43 0.34 3.6 1.2
## Q34_24 110 0.58 0.58 0.38 0.31 2.8 1.1
## Q35_7 119 0.67 0.66 0.55 0.43 4.0 1.1
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_1 0.03 0.19 0.10 0.32 0.36 0.85
## Q30_2 0.09 0.37 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.86
## Q34_20 0.03 0.22 0.14 0.29 0.32 0.85
## Q34_24 0.09 0.38 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.86
## Q35_7 0.03 0.12 0.11 0.36 0.39 0.85## data$psycsocemo_health_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 99 689 17 0.989 3.477 0.8607 2.2 2.4
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 2.9 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.6
##
## lowest : 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6, highest: 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
##
## Value 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
## Frequency 1 2 6 5 4 7 3 5 15 7 17
## Proportion 0.010 0.020 0.061 0.051 0.040 0.071 0.030 0.051 0.152 0.071 0.172
##
## Value 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
## Frequency 8 5 6 4 1 3
## Proportion 0.081 0.051 0.061 0.040 0.010 0.030
## [1] 2.0929572 0.9955063 0.8031055 0.7372397 0.3711913## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = psycsocemo_health_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_1 0.45 0.47 0.42 0.57974 2.0
## Q30_2 0.99 0.13 1.00 0.00041 1.0
## Q34_20 0.16 0.38 0.17 0.82662 1.4
## Q34_24 0.12 0.37 0.15 0.85164 1.2
## Q35_7 0.02 0.83 0.69 0.31141 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.23 1.20
## Proportion Var 0.25 0.24
## Cumulative Var 0.25 0.49
## Proportion Explained 0.50 0.50
## Cumulative Proportion 0.50 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 10 and the objective function was 0.78 with Chi Square of 612.75
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 1 and the objective function was 0.02
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 112 with the empirical chi square 1.63 with prob < 0.2
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 15.14 with prob < 1e-04
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.765
## RMSEA index = 0.134 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.08 0.197
## BIC = 8.47
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 1.00 0.86
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 1.00 0.74
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.99 0.47
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = psycsocemo_health_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_1 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.57974 2.0
## Q30_2 1.00 -0.02 1.00 0.00041 1.0
## Q34_20 0.13 0.36 0.17 0.82662 1.3
## Q34_24 0.09 0.36 0.15 0.85164 1.1
## Q35_7 -0.05 0.84 0.69 0.31141 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.26 1.17
## Proportion Var 0.25 0.23
## Cumulative Var 0.25 0.49
## Proportion Explained 0.52 0.48
## Cumulative Proportion 0.52 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.23
## MR2 0.23 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 10 and the objective function was 0.78 with Chi Square of 612.75
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 1 and the objective function was 0.02
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.03
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.09
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 112 with the empirical chi square 1.63 with prob < 0.2
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 15.14 with prob < 1e-04
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.765
## RMSEA index = 0.134 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.08 0.197
## BIC = 8.47
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
Data unique to student-parents (patuniq)
Parenting/Childcare Issues
o Q30, statement 8: As a student-parent, I prioritize parenting over self-care.
o Q32, statement 1: Due to the COVID pandemic, I have not had access to childcare.
o Q32, statement 2: Due to the closing of my child’s childcare facility, I considered not continuing at the University.
o Q32, statement 3: The impact of COVID-19 on K-12 schools has placed a burden on me and my family.
o Q32, statement 6: Remote instruction does not alleviate my need for childcare.
o Q34, statement 1: As a student-parent, self-care is not a priority.
o Q34, statement 2: I often have feelings of guilt regarding putting my educational experience ahead of my parental duties.
o Q34, statement 13: I am considering leaving school due to the challenges of being a student-parent.
o Q34, statement 14: I feel guilty if I spend time on myself.
o Q35, statement 13: There are times when I do not feel successful as a parent.
o Q35, statement 14: I wish I could better handle the challenges of being a parent.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = pat_childcare_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.8 0.8 0.85 0.27 4.1 0.011 3.6 0.66 0.25
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.78 0.8 0.82
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q30_8 0.79 0.79 0.84 0.28 3.8 0.011 0.031 0.26
## Q32_1 0.78 0.79 0.84 0.27 3.7 0.012 0.033 0.23
## Q32_2 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.28 3.8 0.011 0.031 0.26
## Q32_3 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.28 4.0 0.011 0.031 0.26
## Q32_6 0.78 0.79 0.84 0.27 3.7 0.012 0.034 0.23
## Q34_1 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.29 4.0 0.011 0.032 0.27
## Q34_2 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.4 0.012 0.026 0.23
## Q34_13 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.30 4.3 0.010 0.025 0.29
## Q34_14 0.77 0.77 0.83 0.25 3.4 0.012 0.028 0.22
## Q35_13 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.25 3.4 0.012 0.025 0.22
## Q35_14 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.26 3.5 0.012 0.028 0.25
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q30_8 120 0.53 0.54 0.48 0.42 4.4 0.79
## Q32_1 107 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.48 3.0 1.13
## Q32_2 97 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.41 2.6 1.13
## Q32_3 115 0.52 0.49 0.42 0.36 3.8 1.12
## Q32_6 109 0.59 0.57 0.50 0.46 3.8 1.15
## Q34_1 119 0.51 0.47 0.38 0.32 3.5 1.27
## Q34_2 119 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.61 4.2 1.00
## Q34_13 119 0.35 0.37 0.30 0.23 2.3 1.01
## Q34_14 120 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.60 3.9 1.10
## Q35_13 119 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.62 4.0 1.04
## Q35_14 118 0.70 0.68 0.66 0.58 3.8 1.06
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q30_8 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.31 0.59 0.85
## Q32_1 0.04 0.39 0.18 0.28 0.11 0.86
## Q32_2 0.10 0.49 0.15 0.16 0.08 0.88
## Q32_3 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.38 0.32 0.85
## Q32_6 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.30 0.34 0.86
## Q34_1 0.04 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.28 0.85
## Q34_2 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.31 0.50 0.85
## Q34_13 0.14 0.58 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.85
## Q34_14 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.85
## Q35_13 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.36 0.38 0.85
## Q35_14 0.02 0.11 0.24 0.32 0.31 0.85## data$pat_childcare_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 85 703 29 0.997 3.624 0.7128 2.564 2.855
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.182 3.727 4.000 4.418 4.636
##
## lowest : 2.090909 2.272727 2.545455 2.636364 2.727273
## highest: 4.545455 4.636364 4.818182 4.909091 5.000000
## [1] 3.9434307 1.6095445 1.2691288 1.0972763 0.7576104 0.5845408 0.4752986
## [8] 0.4252432 0.3686998 0.2921552 0.1770717## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = pat_childcare_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_8 0.52 0.03 0.27 0.7307 1.0
## Q32_1 0.31 0.48 0.33 0.6721 1.7
## Q32_2 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.0047 1.0
## Q32_3 0.28 0.32 0.18 0.8182 2.0
## Q32_6 0.41 0.30 0.26 0.7421 1.8
## Q34_1 0.38 0.06 0.15 0.8537 1.0
## Q34_2 0.82 0.09 0.68 0.3249 1.0
## Q34_13 0.02 0.45 0.20 0.7998 1.0
## Q34_14 0.75 0.13 0.57 0.4269 1.1
## Q35_13 0.76 0.19 0.61 0.3879 1.1
## Q35_14 0.64 0.24 0.47 0.5307 1.3
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.97 1.74
## Proportion Var 0.27 0.16
## Cumulative Var 0.27 0.43
## Proportion Explained 0.63 0.37
## Cumulative Proportion 0.63 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.19 with Chi Square of 3281.57
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.08
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.09
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.11
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 108 with the empirical chi square 88.8 with prob < 8.7e-07
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 841.11 with prob < 1.1e-154
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.595
## RMSEA index = 0.174 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.164 0.184
## BIC = 614.35
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.93
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = pat_childcare_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q30_8 0.53 -0.07 0.27 0.7307 1.0
## Q32_1 0.30 0.42 0.33 0.6721 1.8
## Q32_2 -0.02 1.00 1.00 0.0047 1.0
## Q32_3 0.28 0.26 0.18 0.8182 2.0
## Q32_6 0.41 0.22 0.26 0.7421 1.5
## Q34_1 0.39 -0.02 0.15 0.8537 1.0
## Q34_2 0.84 -0.08 0.68 0.3249 1.0
## Q34_13 0.00 0.45 0.20 0.7998 1.0
## Q34_14 0.76 -0.02 0.57 0.4269 1.0
## Q35_13 0.77 0.04 0.61 0.3879 1.0
## Q35_14 0.65 0.11 0.47 0.5307 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 3.13 1.58
## Proportion Var 0.28 0.14
## Cumulative Var 0.28 0.43
## Proportion Explained 0.66 0.34
## Cumulative Proportion 0.66 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.24
## MR2 0.24 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 55 and the objective function was 4.19 with Chi Square of 3281.57
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 34 and the objective function was 1.08
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.09
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.11
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 108 with the empirical chi square 88.8 with prob < 8.7e-07
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 841.11 with prob < 1.1e-154
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.595
## RMSEA index = 0.174 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.164 0.184
## BIC = 614.35
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.93
Children’s Health/Behavioral Issues (child_issues)
o Q34, statement 3: I am concerned about my child(ren)’s overall health.
o Q34, statement 5: I am concerned about my child(ren)’s development.
o Q34, statement 7: I am concerned about my child(ren)’s learning.
o Q34, statement 9: I am concerned about my child(ren)’s behavior.
o Q34, statement 15: My child(ren) had difficulty in adjusting to the need to stay at home.
o Q34, statement 16: My child(ren) miss their friends.
o Q34, statement 17: My child(ren) miss being in school.
o Q34, statement 18: My child(ren) miss going to daycare.
o Q34, statement 19: My child(ren) are having difficulty in coping with the pandemic challenges.
o Q34, statement 25: Sibling relationships among my children have been difficult during the pandemic.
o Q35, statement 1: My use of remote learning has been difficult for my child(ren).
o Q35, statement 2: My child’s own remote learning has caused stress (or anxiety) for him/her.
o Q35, statement 3: My child/children are too active for me to participate in remote learning.
o Q35, statement 5: My child(ren) appears depressed due to the pandemic.
o Q35, statement 6: My child(ren) worries about the impact of the pandemic.
o Q35, statement 8: My child(ren) have been bored at home during the pandemic.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = child_issues_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.89 0.9 0.93 0.35 8.6 0.0055 3.5 0.78 0.32
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.88 0.89 0.91
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q34_3 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.36 8.4 0.0056 0.021 0.32
## Q34_5 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.2 0.0057 0.020 0.32
## Q34_7 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.0 0.0059 0.021 0.32
## Q34_9 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.1 0.0058 0.021 0.32
## Q34_15 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 7.9 0.0059 0.022 0.32
## Q34_16 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.34 7.7 0.0060 0.020 0.32
## Q34_17 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.1 0.0058 0.021 0.32
## Q34_18 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.35 8.2 0.0057 0.022 0.32
## Q34_19 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.33 7.6 0.0062 0.021 0.31
## Q34_25 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.37 8.8 0.0055 0.020 0.32
## Q35_1 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 7.9 0.0059 0.022 0.32
## Q35_2 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.34 7.7 0.0061 0.021 0.32
## Q35_3 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.36 8.4 0.0056 0.022 0.32
## Q35_5 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.0 0.0059 0.023 0.32
## Q35_6 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.35 8.0 0.0059 0.023 0.31
## Q35_8 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.35 8.1 0.0058 0.023 0.32
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q34_3 120 0.59 0.54 0.50 0.47 3.8 1.27
## Q34_5 119 0.65 0.59 0.58 0.53 3.5 1.31
## Q34_7 118 0.71 0.65 0.64 0.60 3.8 1.26
## Q34_9 118 0.67 0.62 0.60 0.56 3.4 1.32
## Q34_15 119 0.64 0.66 0.64 0.59 3.6 1.29
## Q34_16 113 0.70 0.73 0.73 0.66 4.1 0.96
## Q34_17 108 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.53 3.9 1.03
## Q34_18 88 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.51 3.4 1.18
## Q34_19 115 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.73 3.5 1.18
## Q34_25 104 0.39 0.41 0.35 0.33 3.0 1.08
## Q35_1 109 0.66 0.67 0.65 0.61 3.4 1.22
## Q35_2 106 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.68 3.7 1.22
## Q35_3 111 0.53 0.52 0.48 0.45 3.0 1.17
## Q35_5 113 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.57 2.8 1.20
## Q35_6 111 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.58 3.2 1.26
## Q35_8 118 0.61 0.62 0.58 0.54 3.8 1.10
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q34_3 0.05 0.17 0.10 0.28 0.40 0.85
## Q34_5 0.06 0.26 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.85
## Q34_7 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.32 0.38 0.85
## Q34_9 0.06 0.31 0.12 0.25 0.27 0.85
## Q34_15 0.04 0.24 0.11 0.27 0.34 0.85
## Q34_16 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.35 0.44 0.86
## Q34_17 0.00 0.13 0.18 0.32 0.37 0.86
## Q34_18 0.00 0.27 0.32 0.11 0.30 0.89
## Q34_19 0.03 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.26 0.85
## Q34_25 0.03 0.38 0.28 0.20 0.12 0.87
## Q35_1 0.05 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.86
## Q35_2 0.05 0.18 0.15 0.32 0.30 0.87
## Q35_3 0.05 0.38 0.24 0.18 0.14 0.86
## Q35_5 0.09 0.46 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.86
## Q35_6 0.09 0.29 0.15 0.31 0.16 0.86
## Q35_8 0.03 0.11 0.19 0.36 0.31 0.85## data$child_issues_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 74 714 34 0.998 3.568 0.8644 2.331 2.706
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.062 3.500 4.125 4.544 4.875
##
## lowest : 1.6875 2.0000 2.0625 2.2500 2.3750, highest: 4.5000 4.5625 4.6250 4.8750 5.0000
## [1] 6.4493196 2.0070926 1.2866993 1.0995914 0.8858750 0.6791557 0.6320163
## [8] 0.5597000 0.4948167 0.4270385 0.3754971 0.3446854 0.2529592 0.1962385
## [15] 0.1787731 0.1305416## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = child_issues_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q34_3 0.15 0.70 0.51 0.49 1.1
## Q34_5 0.14 0.85 0.74 0.26 1.1
## Q34_7 0.27 0.76 0.66 0.34 1.3
## Q34_9 0.23 0.76 0.63 0.37 1.2
## Q34_15 0.73 0.09 0.54 0.46 1.0
## Q34_16 0.78 0.13 0.62 0.38 1.1
## Q34_17 0.64 0.10 0.41 0.59 1.1
## Q34_18 0.53 0.22 0.32 0.68 1.3
## Q34_19 0.72 0.33 0.62 0.38 1.4
## Q34_25 0.35 0.09 0.13 0.87 1.1
## Q35_1 0.60 0.26 0.42 0.58 1.4
## Q35_2 0.75 0.21 0.60 0.40 1.1
## Q35_3 0.45 0.18 0.23 0.77 1.3
## Q35_5 0.52 0.27 0.35 0.65 1.5
## Q35_6 0.49 0.35 0.36 0.64 1.8
## Q35_8 0.63 0.12 0.41 0.59 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 4.64 2.92
## Proportion Var 0.29 0.18
## Cumulative Var 0.29 0.47
## Proportion Explained 0.61 0.39
## Cumulative Proportion 0.61 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 120 and the objective function was 9 with Chi Square of 7026.97
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 89 and the objective function was 2.27
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.07
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.08
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 105 with the empirical chi square 129.68 with prob < 0.0032
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1771.38 with prob < 9.5e-311
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.671
## RMSEA index = 0.155 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.149 0.161
## BIC = 1177.8
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.97
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.94 0.93
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.88 0.86
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.76 0.72
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = child_issues_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q34_3 -0.02 0.72 0.51 0.49 1.0
## Q34_5 -0.07 0.89 0.74 0.26 1.0
## Q34_7 0.10 0.76 0.66 0.34 1.0
## Q34_9 0.06 0.76 0.63 0.37 1.0
## Q34_15 0.78 -0.11 0.54 0.46 1.0
## Q34_16 0.82 -0.07 0.62 0.38 1.0
## Q34_17 0.67 -0.06 0.41 0.59 1.0
## Q34_18 0.52 0.10 0.32 0.68 1.1
## Q34_19 0.70 0.16 0.62 0.38 1.1
## Q34_25 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.87 1.0
## Q35_1 0.59 0.12 0.42 0.58 1.1
## Q35_2 0.77 0.02 0.60 0.40 1.0
## Q35_3 0.45 0.07 0.23 0.77 1.0
## Q35_5 0.50 0.16 0.35 0.65 1.2
## Q35_6 0.44 0.25 0.36 0.64 1.6
## Q35_8 0.66 -0.05 0.41 0.59 1.0
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 4.79 2.77
## Proportion Var 0.30 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.30 0.47
## Proportion Explained 0.63 0.37
## Cumulative Proportion 0.63 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.46
## MR2 0.46 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 120 and the objective function was 9 with Chi Square of 7026.97
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 89 and the objective function was 2.27
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.07
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.08
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 105 with the empirical chi square 129.68 with prob < 0.0032
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 1771.38 with prob < 9.5e-311
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.671
## RMSEA index = 0.155 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.149 0.161
## BIC = 1177.8
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.97
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.95 0.94
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.91 0.89
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.82 0.77
Pregnancy Issues (pregnancy)
o Q34, statement 28: My pregnancy has impacted my ability to attend class.
o Q34, statement 29: My pregnancy has impacted my ability to complete course assignments.
o Q34, statement 31: My partner’s pregnancy has affected my ability to complete coursework.
##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = pregnancy_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.81 0.82 0.78 0.6 4.5 0.012 2.8 0.73 0.55
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.78 0.81 0.83
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q34_28 0.70 0.71 0.55 0.55 2.4 0.0209 NA 0.55
## Q34_29 0.64 0.65 0.48 0.48 1.8 0.0251 NA 0.48
## Q34_31 0.87 0.87 0.77 0.77 6.8 0.0091 NA 0.77
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q34_28 54 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.70 2.8 0.80
## Q34_29 54 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.76 2.7 0.77
## Q34_31 50 0.84 0.79 0.59 0.54 2.8 0.91
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q34_28 0.02 0.37 0.48 0.09 0.04 0.93
## Q34_29 0.02 0.39 0.50 0.06 0.04 0.93
## Q34_31 0.02 0.34 0.52 0.02 0.10 0.94## data$pregnancy_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd
## 50 738 9 0.833 2.773 0.6955
##
## lowest : 1.666667 2.000000 2.333333 2.666667 3.000000
## highest: 3.000000 3.333333 4.000000 4.333333 5.000000
##
## Value 1.666667 2.000000 2.333333 2.666667 3.000000 3.333333 4.000000
## Frequency 1 15 1 1 26 2 2
## Proportion 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.04
##
## Value 4.333333 5.000000
## Frequency 1 1
## Proportion 0.02 0.02
## [1] 2.2486660 0.5290255 0.2223085## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = pregnancy_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q34_28 0.69 0.49 0.72 0.28 1.8
## Q34_29 0.66 0.64 0.84 0.16 2.0
## Q34_31 0.38 0.51 0.40 0.60 1.9
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.05 0.92
## Proportion Var 0.35 0.31
## Cumulative Var 0.35 0.66
## Proportion Explained 0.53 0.47
## Cumulative Proportion 0.53 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.9
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 3 and the objective function was 1.33 with Chi Square of 1044.33
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 52 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.003
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.72 0.67
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.52 0.44
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.03 -0.11
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = pregnancy_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q34_28 0.85 -0.10 0.72 0.28 1.0
## Q34_29 0.92 0.04 0.84 0.16 1.0
## Q34_31 0.62 0.12 0.40 0.60 1.1
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 1.94 0.03
## Proportion Var 0.65 0.01
## Cumulative Var 0.65 0.66
## Proportion Explained 0.99 0.01
## Cumulative Proportion 0.99 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.03
## MR2 0.03 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 3 and the objective function was 1.33 with Chi Square of 1044.33
## The degrees of freedom for the model are -2 and the objective function was 0
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is NA
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 52 with the empirical chi square 0 with prob < NA
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 0 with prob < NA
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 1.003
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 1
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.95 0.26
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.90 0.07
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.79 -0.87
Expectations
o Q26, statement 1: The university should provide greater flexibility to students in meeting academic requirements (for example with deadlines and attendance) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
o Q26, statement 3: The University should designate a specific staff member to advocate for the needs of students.
o Q28, statement 3: Increased financial support for my education is needed from the University for me to stay in school.
o Q27, statement 6: The University COVID-19 pandemic recovery and relief packages has addressed the needs of students.
o Q27, statement 16: I need flexibility related to coursework deadlines to cope during the pandemic-related crises.
o Q27, statement 17: I should not be penalized for poor academic performance during the COVID-19 crisis.
o Q27, statement 18: My academic performance during the COVID-19 pandemic should not impact my financial assistance for the next semester.
o Q27, statement 23: Faculty should ask students about the impact of COVID-19 during academic advising during the pandemic.
o Q27, statement 24: The University should provide more information on community resources, on and off-campus, during the pandemic.
o Q27, statement 27: The University should provide emergency financial assistance due to the pandemic.
## Some items ( Q27_6 ) were negatively correlated with the total scale and
## probably should be reversed.
## To do this, run the function again with the 'check.keys=TRUE' option##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = expectations_both)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.81 0.81 0.83 0.29 4.1 0.0096 3.8 0.67 0.33
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.79 0.81 0.83
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q26_1 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.27 3.4 0.0113 0.054 0.32
## Q26_3 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.29 3.8 0.0103 0.062 0.33
## Q28_3 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.30 3.9 0.0099 0.058 0.34
## Q27_6 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.39 5.9 0.0077 0.012 0.34
## Q27_16 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.27 3.4 0.0116 0.052 0.32
## Q27_17 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.27 3.3 0.0119 0.050 0.33
## Q27_18 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.27 3.3 0.0116 0.052 0.33
## Q27_23 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.29 3.7 0.0105 0.059 0.33
## Q27_24 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.29 3.6 0.0105 0.058 0.33
## Q27_27 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.27 3.3 0.0113 0.056 0.32
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q26_1 650 0.7199 0.7117 0.68 0.62 4.1 1.07
## Q26_3 645 0.5772 0.5909 0.51 0.46 4.0 0.92
## Q28_3 633 0.5599 0.5414 0.46 0.41 3.1 1.25
## Q27_6 618 -0.0048 -0.0041 -0.18 -0.17 3.1 1.03
## Q27_16 643 0.7379 0.7172 0.70 0.63 3.7 1.20
## Q27_17 642 0.7671 0.7428 0.74 0.66 3.5 1.26
## Q27_18 636 0.7515 0.7330 0.72 0.65 4.0 1.12
## Q27_23 640 0.6026 0.6255 0.57 0.50 4.1 0.93
## Q27_24 639 0.6038 0.6279 0.57 0.50 4.0 0.94
## Q27_27 635 0.7330 0.7420 0.72 0.65 4.1 0.97
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q26_1 0.02 0.08 0.18 0.26 0.46 0.18
## Q26_3 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.18
## Q28_3 0.09 0.29 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.20
## Q27_6 0.06 0.23 0.35 0.28 0.08 0.22
## Q27_16 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.28 0.35 0.18
## Q27_17 0.05 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.31 0.19
## Q27_18 0.03 0.11 0.18 0.26 0.43 0.19
## Q27_23 0.01 0.06 0.15 0.36 0.42 0.19
## Q27_24 0.01 0.07 0.22 0.37 0.34 0.19
## Q27_27 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.34 0.41 0.19## data$expectations_both_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 543 245 33 0.998 3.801 0.7313 2.7 2.9
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.7
##
## lowest : 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2, highest: 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: expectations_both_mean by parenthood
## t = 4.7757, df = 541, p-value = 2.309e-06
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means between group No and group Yes is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.1861796 0.4463529
## sample estimates:
## mean in group No mean in group Yes
## 3.868852 3.552586
## [1] 4.2567146 1.0662177 1.0165780 0.8058826 0.7455289 0.5200540 0.4718855
## [8] 0.4691646 0.3489696 0.2990044## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = expectations_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q26_1 0.61 0.34 0.492 0.51 1.6
## Q26_3 0.31 0.40 0.257 0.74 1.9
## Q28_3 0.30 0.36 0.225 0.77 1.9
## Q27_6 -0.13 -0.12 0.031 0.97 2.0
## Q27_16 0.70 0.28 0.572 0.43 1.3
## Q27_17 0.81 0.23 0.710 0.29 1.2
## Q27_18 0.71 0.28 0.590 0.41 1.3
## Q27_23 0.22 0.62 0.430 0.57 1.3
## Q27_24 0.17 0.73 0.553 0.45 1.1
## Q27_27 0.43 0.58 0.518 0.48 1.8
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.50 1.88
## Proportion Var 0.25 0.19
## Cumulative Var 0.25 0.44
## Proportion Explained 0.57 0.43
## Cumulative Proportion 0.57 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.5
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 45 and the objective function was 3.4 with Chi Square of 2663.3
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 26 and the objective function was 0.19
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.04
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 624 with the empirical chi square 75.14 with prob < 1.2e-06
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 145 with prob < 1.7e-18
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.921
## RMSEA index = 0.076 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.064 0.089
## BIC = -28.41
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.89 0.83
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.79 0.68
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.58 0.37
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = expectations_both, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q26_1 0.60 0.14 0.492 0.51 1.1
## Q26_3 0.22 0.34 0.257 0.74 1.7
## Q28_3 0.23 0.30 0.225 0.77 1.9
## Q27_6 -0.12 -0.08 0.031 0.97 1.8
## Q27_16 0.74 0.03 0.572 0.43 1.0
## Q27_17 0.88 -0.07 0.710 0.29 1.0
## Q27_18 0.75 0.03 0.590 0.41 1.0
## Q27_23 0.04 0.63 0.430 0.57 1.0
## Q27_24 -0.07 0.78 0.553 0.45 1.0
## Q27_27 0.30 0.50 0.518 0.48 1.6
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.67 1.71
## Proportion Var 0.27 0.17
## Cumulative Var 0.27 0.44
## Proportion Explained 0.61 0.39
## Cumulative Proportion 0.61 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.0 0.6
## MR2 0.6 1.0
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.3
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 45 and the objective function was 3.4 with Chi Square of 2663.3
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 26 and the objective function was 0.19
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.04
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.05
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 624 with the empirical chi square 75.14 with prob < 1.2e-06
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 145 with prob < 1.7e-18
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.921
## RMSEA index = 0.076 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.064 0.089
## BIC = -28.41
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.93 0.88
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.87 0.78
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.75 0.55
## Some items ( Q31_7 ) were negatively correlated with the total scale and
## probably should be reversed.
## To do this, run the function again with the 'check.keys=TRUE' option##
## Reliability analysis
## Call: psych::alpha(x = expectations_patuniq)
##
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N ase mean sd median_r
## 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.4 6 0.0071 3.9 0.63 0.49
##
## lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
## 0.84 0.86 0.87
##
## Reliability if an item is dropped:
## raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N alpha se var.r med.r
## Q31_2 0.83 0.82 0.86 0.37 4.7 0.0086 0.071 0.44
## Q31_3 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.39 5.2 0.0079 0.074 0.49
## Q31_7 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.53 8.9 0.0055 0.010 0.52
## Q31_14 0.84 0.83 0.87 0.39 5.0 0.0081 0.075 0.48
## Q32_7 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.40 5.3 0.0079 0.076 0.49
## Q32_8 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.38 4.8 0.0086 0.077 0.46
## Q32_9 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.38 4.8 0.0086 0.072 0.47
## Q32_10 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.39 5.2 0.0080 0.082 0.49
## Q32_11 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.37 4.8 0.0087 0.065 0.44
##
## Item statistics
## n raw.r std.r r.cor r.drop mean sd
## Q31_2 122 0.809 0.815 0.804 0.742 4.1 0.86
## Q31_3 121 0.687 0.707 0.668 0.608 4.4 0.73
## Q31_7 110 0.089 0.099 -0.046 -0.062 2.6 0.85
## Q31_14 114 0.741 0.742 0.713 0.643 3.9 0.92
## Q32_7 121 0.706 0.689 0.646 0.591 4.0 1.05
## Q32_8 119 0.786 0.788 0.768 0.722 4.1 0.93
## Q32_9 120 0.789 0.792 0.779 0.720 4.0 0.96
## Q32_10 121 0.719 0.715 0.663 0.621 4.1 0.94
## Q32_11 120 0.807 0.799 0.795 0.735 4.1 0.93
##
## Non missing response frequency for each item
## 1 2 3 4 5 miss
## Q31_2 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.34 0.38 0.85
## Q31_3 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.38 0.50 0.85
## Q31_7 0.05 0.47 0.40 0.03 0.05 0.86
## Q31_14 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.86
## Q32_7 0.02 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.40 0.85
## Q32_8 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.85
## Q32_9 0.02 0.03 0.28 0.29 0.38 0.85
## Q32_10 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.36 0.39 0.85
## Q32_11 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.32 0.40 0.85## data$expectations_patuniq_mean
## n missing distinct Info Mean Gmd .05 .10
## 102 686 21 0.995 3.935 0.7159 3.000 3.111
## .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
## 3.444 3.944 4.556 4.667 4.772
##
## lowest : 2.000000 2.555556 3.000000 3.111111 3.222222
## highest: 4.555556 4.666667 4.777778 4.888889 5.000000
## [1] 4.7179664 1.0865787 0.8995359 0.6232384 0.5357734 0.3728550 0.3243053
## [8] 0.2466211 0.1931260## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = expectations_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "varimax")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q31_2 0.52 0.70 0.757 0.24 1.9
## Q31_3 0.39 0.64 0.564 0.44 1.6
## Q31_7 0.00 -0.12 0.014 0.99 1.0
## Q31_14 0.41 0.69 0.639 0.36 1.6
## Q32_7 0.67 0.16 0.482 0.52 1.1
## Q32_8 0.83 0.14 0.700 0.30 1.1
## Q32_9 0.67 0.37 0.593 0.41 1.6
## Q32_10 0.65 0.19 0.455 0.54 1.2
## Q32_11 0.71 0.40 0.670 0.33 1.6
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 3.11 1.77
## Proportion Var 0.35 0.20
## Cumulative Var 0.35 0.54
## Proportion Explained 0.64 0.36
## Cumulative Proportion 0.64 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.4
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 36 and the objective function was 4.73 with Chi Square of 3700.69
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 19 and the objective function was 0.48
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.05
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.07
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 116 with the empirical chi square 21.12 with prob < 0.33
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 376.61 with prob < 3.2e-68
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.815
## RMSEA index = 0.155 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.141 0.168
## BIC = 249.89
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.90 0.84
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.81 0.71
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.63 0.43
## Factor Analysis using method = minres
## Call: fa(r = expectations_patuniq, nfactors = 2, rotate = "oblimin")
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
## MR1 MR2 h2 u2 com
## Q31_2 0.10 0.80 0.757 0.24 1.0
## Q31_3 -0.02 0.77 0.564 0.44 1.0
## Q31_7 0.09 -0.17 0.014 0.99 1.6
## Q31_14 -0.03 0.82 0.639 0.36 1.0
## Q32_7 0.70 0.00 0.482 0.52 1.0
## Q32_8 0.90 -0.09 0.700 0.30 1.0
## Q32_9 0.53 0.29 0.593 0.41 1.5
## Q32_10 0.64 0.05 0.455 0.54 1.0
## Q32_11 0.56 0.32 0.670 0.33 1.6
##
## MR1 MR2
## SS loadings 2.53 2.35
## Proportion Var 0.28 0.26
## Cumulative Var 0.28 0.54
## Proportion Explained 0.52 0.48
## Cumulative Proportion 0.52 1.00
##
## With factor correlations of
## MR1 MR2
## MR1 1.00 0.72
## MR2 0.72 1.00
##
## Mean item complexity = 1.2
## Test of the hypothesis that 2 factors are sufficient.
##
## The degrees of freedom for the null model are 36 and the objective function was 4.73 with Chi Square of 3700.69
## The degrees of freedom for the model are 19 and the objective function was 0.48
##
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.05
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is 0.07
##
## The harmonic number of observations is 116 with the empirical chi square 21.12 with prob < 0.33
## The total number of observations was 788 with Likelihood Chi Square = 376.61 with prob < 3.2e-68
##
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability = 0.815
## RMSEA index = 0.155 and the 90 % confidence intervals are 0.141 0.168
## BIC = 249.89
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy
## MR1 MR2
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors 0.94 0.94
## Multiple R square of scores with factors 0.88 0.88
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores 0.76 0.76
Social Support
o Q24, statement 2: I feel welcomed on the UL campus.
o Q24, statement 5: I feel supported by the University to continue my education.
o Q28, statement 2: I struggle with social support to meet my day-to-day needs. ®