Editing CoTwins (section)

== EF Data Analysis ==

===As of 07/06/2020===
Lab-based EF Data has been coded and analyzed through March 15th, 2020 (811 Subjects total) by Sam Freis. 786 participants have data on all 3 in lab EF tasks. All data and scripts are in the EF Analyses - 2020-05-25 folder on Delta. Detailed notes on processing issues and file modifications are in the word document ProcessingNotesFreis052520. I added several scripts to the existing step 3 and 4 folders. PreCombineSanityChecks.R in the 3_Ranalysis folder checks for duplicate IDs in the trimmed data files and should be run before the final MASTER_EF_Ranalysis script. I modified the existing antisaccade processing script to keep the correct subject number and data together after an ID merge issue in my first round of processing. I added EFsTroubleShooting.R and EFmissing.R scripts to the step 4 folder to identify missing data and inconsistent scoring across processing batches. I also added some code in the combined R output script to double-check that the correct IDs are retained after the merge step.  

===As of 08/17/2016===
EF Data has been coded and analyzed through August 17th, 2016 (577 Subjects) by Daniel Gustavson. The EF task scripts, data, and most recent upload, can be found on the delta server (delta.colorado.edu\COTwins\EF Analyses). There are ReadMe files inside the folders for each of the four steps for data analysis (start there for instruction on how to add future subjects to the data), and an archive of Dan's last upload (delta.colorado.edu\COTwins).

Follow up note from Andrew Reineberg on 05/15/2017:
    I added a new folder to cotwins on delta (EF Analyses - 2017-05-13) containing the analyses using Dan's scripts as well as a python script for calculating descriptives and reliability (andrew_ef.{ipynb,html,pdf} inside the 4_Final EF Data directory). About 100 participants were added since the last analysis in August of '16 for a final n of 654 (cases where we have all three EF tasks). The reliability and interrelationship of EF tasks is consistent with the summaries Dan provided of previous time points. FYI, we noticed split half reliability of the task set switching task is low compared to other samples. One other oddity I found is the modification of participant 23521's keep track data file. I'll document the issue here in case you want to forward this to someone who can fill us in on the details:
    There appear to be several modifications of the file, so I am not sure which one is appropriate to use. All comparisons are to the raw data file (20160609ApaperdataCCW.xlsx).
    Mod 1 - 20160609ApaperdataCCW_cleanedlaterIS_MS.xlsx - incorrect participant number was changed to the correct participant number. Response to a practice trial was changed. These modifications should not affect keep track score. I used this file in my analysis.
    Mod 2 - 20160609ApaperdataCCW_cleanedlater_IS_MS.xlsx - incorrect participant number was changed to the correct participant number. Response to the first real trial was changed. The latter modification will affect keep track score.
    At this point, the EF variables can be put into whatever higher level analyses you had in mind. I suppose that is something you'll be discussing with Naomi. Do let me know if there is anything I can do to facilitate those analyses or access to the work Dan and I did.
   -Andrew"