Re: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring
Hi Jenn, Thank you very much for the prompt response and for the help. Nicola On 03/09/2018 08:48 PM, Elam, Jennifer wrote: Hi Nicola, We have confirmed that item #59 was incorrectly forward coded in the NEO Agreeableness scoring when it should have been reverse coded. We traced this back to the UPenn CNP outputs that we received from UPenn. _The data currently in ConnectomeDB available for download still has this bug_. New NEO Agreeableness and NEO total scores will be replace the incorrect scoring with the upcoming 7T data release (likely to occur by the end of March). However, if you'd like the corrected scores before the release, attached is the corrected item level data with a corrected NEO Agreeableness score (column HE) for each subject (you can calculate new NEO Total scores from the components yourself). The erroneous scoring has a maximum effect of +/- 4 on both NEO.NEOFAC_A and NEO.NEO (Total of all components), depending on the subject's answer to item #59. Best, Jenn Jennifer Elam, Ph.D. Scientific Outreach, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Neuroscience, Box 8108 660 South Euclid Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-9387 e...@wustl.edu<mailto:e...@wustl.edu> www.humanconnectome.org<http://www.humanconnectome.org/> *From:* Nicola Toschi <tos...@med.uniroma2.it> *Sent:* Friday, March 9, 2018 11:39:48 AM *To:* Elam, Jennifer; Josh Gray; hcp-users@humanconnectome.org *Subject:* Re: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring Hi Jenn, Hi List, I was wondering if this issue with the Agreeableness scoring had been a) confirmed and b) addressed in the current data available for download. It would be great if you could post an update on this. Thanks!!! Nicola On 10/04/2017 05:16 PM, Elam, Jennifer wrote: Hi Josh, After a couple of spot checks, it appears that you might have indeed found a bug in the NEO Agreeableness scoring. Thanks for posting the problem to the list. We will pass the issue on to the developers and see if they can find the bug and correct their code for the scoring. The issue will be tracked on the Issues and Updates wiki <https://wiki.humanconnectome.org/display/PublicData/HCP+Data+Release+Updates%3A+Known+Issues+and+Planned+fixes> and if needed a fix will go out with the next release. Thanks again, Jenn Jennifer Elam, Ph.D. Scientific Outreach, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Neuroscience, Box 8108 660 South Euclid Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-9387 e...@wustl.edu<mailto:e...@wustl.edu> www.humanconnectome.org<http://www.humanconnectome.org/> *From:* hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org <mailto:hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org> <hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org> <mailto:hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org> on behalf of Josh Gray <jgray7...@gmail.com> <mailto:jgray7...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:42:41 AM *To:* hcp-users@humanconnectome.org <mailto:hcp-users@humanconnectome.org> *Subject:* [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring Hello, I believe that I may have found a bug in the total score of Agreeableness as it is presented in the HCP data. It appears that when I run syntax on the raw data (coding SD = 0, D = 1, N = 2, A = 3, SA = 4) and then reverse code appropriate items and sum into subscales, all of the subscales line up with the total scores you have provided except for Agreeableness. My conclusion is that #59 was not reverse coded when it should have been. I believe this is the case because when I remove the reverse coding I applied to #59, the Agreeableness scores line up. Also, when you do reverse code #59 it improves the cronbachs alpha. Here are the items I sum together for agreeableness (* = reverse coded): (4, 9*, 14*, 19, 24*, 29*, 34, 39*, 44*, 49. 54*, 59*). Please let me know if this is unclear or seems incorrect. Josh -- Joshua C. Gray, PhD Psychology Instructor Center for Deployment Psychology Work: (301) 816-4768 www.deploymentpsych.org <http://www.deploymentpsych.org> ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org <mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org> http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org <mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org> http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
Re: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring
Dear Nicola as far as I can tell, the bug is still present in the behavioral file [unrestrictedcsv] (I just downloaded it and checked). I have shared a simple Python jupyter notebook that you can use to correct the bug. https://github.com/adolphslab/HCP_MRI-behavior/blob/master/recomputeNEOFFIfactors.ipynb - Julien ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
Re: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring
Hi Jenn, Hi List, I was wondering if this issue with the Agreeableness scoring had been a) confirmed and b) addressed in the current data available for download. It would be great if you could post an update on this. Thanks!!! Nicola On 10/04/2017 05:16 PM, Elam, Jennifer wrote: Hi Josh, After a couple of spot checks, it appears that you might have indeed found a bug in the NEO Agreeableness scoring. Thanks for posting the problem to the list. We will pass the issue on to the developers and see if they can find the bug and correct their code for the scoring. The issue will be tracked on the Issues and Updates wiki <https://wiki.humanconnectome.org/display/PublicData/HCP+Data+Release+Updates%3A+Known+Issues+and+Planned+fixes> and if needed a fix will go out with the next release. Thanks again, Jenn Jennifer Elam, Ph.D. Scientific Outreach, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Neuroscience, Box 8108 660 South Euclid Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-9387 e...@wustl.edu<mailto:e...@wustl.edu> www.humanconnectome.org<http://www.humanconnectome.org/> *From:* hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org <hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org> on behalf of Josh Gray <jgray7...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:42:41 AM *To:* hcp-users@humanconnectome.org *Subject:* [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring Hello, I believe that I may have found a bug in the total score of Agreeableness as it is presented in the HCP data. It appears that when I run syntax on the raw data (coding SD = 0, D = 1, N = 2, A = 3, SA = 4) and then reverse code appropriate items and sum into subscales, all of the subscales line up with the total scores you have provided except for Agreeableness. My conclusion is that #59 was not reverse coded when it should have been. I believe this is the case because when I remove the reverse coding I applied to #59, the Agreeableness scores line up. Also, when you do reverse code #59 it improves the cronbachs alpha. Here are the items I sum together for agreeableness (* = reverse coded): (4, 9*, 14*, 19, 24*, 29*, 34, 39*, 44*, 49. 54*, 59*). Please let me know if this is unclear or seems incorrect. Josh -- Joshua C. Gray, PhD Psychology Instructor Center for Deployment Psychology Work: (301) 816-4768 www.deploymentpsych.org <http://www.deploymentpsych.org/> ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
Re: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring
Hi Josh, After a couple of spot checks, it appears that you might have indeed found a bug in the NEO Agreeableness scoring. Thanks for posting the problem to the list. We will pass the issue on to the developers and see if they can find the bug and correct their code for the scoring. The issue will be tracked on the Issues and Updates wiki<https://wiki.humanconnectome.org/display/PublicData/HCP+Data+Release+Updates%3A+Known+Issues+and+Planned+fixes> and if needed a fix will go out with the next release. Thanks again, Jenn Jennifer Elam, Ph.D. Scientific Outreach, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Neuroscience, Box 8108 660 South Euclid Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-9387 e...@wustl.edu<mailto:e...@wustl.edu> www.humanconnectome.org<http://www.humanconnectome.org/> From: hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org <hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org> on behalf of Josh Gray <jgray7...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:42:41 AM To: hcp-users@humanconnectome.org Subject: [HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring Hello, I believe that I may have found a bug in the total score of Agreeableness as it is presented in the HCP data. It appears that when I run syntax on the raw data (coding SD = 0, D = 1, N = 2, A = 3, SA = 4) and then reverse code appropriate items and sum into subscales, all of the subscales line up with the total scores you have provided except for Agreeableness. My conclusion is that #59 was not reverse coded when it should have been. I believe this is the case because when I remove the reverse coding I applied to #59, the Agreeableness scores line up. Also, when you do reverse code #59 it improves the cronbachs alpha. Here are the items I sum together for agreeableness (* = reverse coded): (4, 9*, 14*, 19, 24*, 29*, 34, 39*, 44*, 49. 54*, 59*). Please let me know if this is unclear or seems incorrect. Josh -- Joshua C. Gray, PhD Psychology Instructor Center for Deployment Psychology Work: (301) 816-4768 www.deploymentpsych.org<http://www.deploymentpsych.org/> ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
[HCP-Users] NEO-FFI Agreeableness scoring
Hello, I believe that I may have found a bug in the total score of Agreeableness as it is presented in the HCP data. It appears that when I run syntax on the raw data (coding SD = 0, D = 1, N = 2, A = 3, SA = 4) and then reverse code appropriate items and sum into subscales, all of the subscales line up with the total scores you have provided except for Agreeableness. My conclusion is that #59 was not reverse coded when it should have been. I believe this is the case because when I remove the reverse coding I applied to #59, the Agreeableness scores line up. Also, when you do reverse code #59 it improves the cronbachs alpha. Here are the items I sum together for agreeableness (* = reverse coded): (4, 9*, 14*, 19, 24*, 29*, 34, 39*, 44*, 49. 54*, 59*). Please let me know if this is unclear or seems incorrect. Josh -- Joshua C. Gray, PhD Psychology Instructor Center for Deployment Psychology Work: (301) 816-4768 www.deploymentpsych.org ___ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
