Quantitative data from community observations are stored and managed using SPSS social survey software. The sampling unit used is a harvest event, typically a hunting or fishing event in a particular season. As of 5 September, 2008 we have received and encoded data for 56 harvest events as follows: Harvest type: Mammal (10), Fish (45), Shellfish (1) Community: Gambell (10), Kanchalan (22), Nikolskoye (6), Sandpoint (18) Preliminary SPSS Data structure: Name, Label, Type, Width ID Respondent s Identification Number String 10 INTERNO Interview Number String 2 DATE Date On Which the Interview Took Place Date 8 SEX Gender Numeric 1 YEARBO Year of Birth Numeric 11 VILLAGE Village Where Respndent Resides String 6 LOCATI Respondent Resides in Russia or Alaska Numeric 8 LIVED How Long Respondent Lived in the Area String 100 LANGUAG Language in Which Interiew Conducted Numeric 7 HARVEST Level of Harvester Numeric 4 YEARHU How Many Years Respondent Has Hunted/Fished in the Area Numeric 8 EMPLOY Is the Respondent Employed in a Non-Harvesting Field Numeric 3 TIMEWOR Time Per Week/Month Is Spent in Non-Harvest Work Numeric 8 YEARWOR How Many Years Spent in Non-Harvest Work CATEGORIES Numeric 8 Q1FISHM Is Respondent Hunting Fish or Mammals On Next Trip Numeric 4 SPECIES Species of Fish/Mammal Being Hunted/Fished Numeric 8 Q2RECA Does Respondent Recall When Last Hunt/Fish Trip Occurre Numeric 3 Q2WHEN Date of Last Hunt/Fish Trip String 50 Q2AAGO How Long Ago Was Last Hunt/Fish Trip Numeric 16 Q3FAR How Far Respondent Travelled On Last Hunt/Fish Trip Numeric Q4OFTEN How Often Respondent Hunted/Fished in the Location of Last Trip Numeric 6 Q5AGE Age When Respondent First Went to Location of Last Trip Numeric 18 Q6PROX Prefers Loc. of Last Trip Due to Proximity to Village Numeric 11 Q6ACCES Prefers Location of Last Trip Due to Ease of Access Numeric 11 Q6CATCH Prefers Location of Last Trip Due to Ease of Catching Numeric 11 Q6OTHER Prefers Location of Last Trip Due to Some Other Reason Numeric 11 Q6SPECI Other Reason Prefers Locatin of Last Trip String 200 Q6DONT Respondent Does Not Like Location of Last Trip Numeric 11 Q7RELY Is Location of Last Trip Reliable for Fishing/Hunting Numeric 3 Q8NOTIC In Previous 5-10 Years Has Respondent Noticed Changes at Last Hunt/Fish Location Numeric 3 Q9OTHER Do Others From the Village Also Hunt/Fish at Location of Last Trip Numeric 3 Q10GETA On Last Trip, Was it Easier or More Difficult to Get to Location Numeric 3 Q10GETR On Last Trip Did Respondent Encounter Difficulties Getting to Hunt/Fish Location Numeric 8 Q10ATRA More Difficult to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Lack of Transportation Numeric 11 Q10AROA More Difficult to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Poor Road Conditions Numeric 11 Q10AENV More Difficult to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Poor Environ Conditions Numeric 11 Q10AECO More Diff. to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Economics Numeric 11 Q10AHEA More Difficult to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Personal Health Condition Numeric 11 Q10AOTHE More Difficult to Get to Location of Last Trip Due to Other Reasons Numeric 23 Q11TRAD Last Harvest Used for Traditional/Personal Use Numeric 11 Q11CASH Last Harvest Used for Generating Cash or Bartering Numeric 11 Q11REC Last Harvest Used for Recreational Hunting/Fishing Numeric 11 Q11COM Last Harvest Used for Commercial or Business Activity Numeric 11 Q11DOG Last Harvest Used for Feeding Dogs Numeric 11 Q11SHAR Last Harvest Used for Sharing with Friends/Family Numeric 11 Q11OTHE Last Harvest Used for Something Else Numeric 20 Q12QUAN Quantity of XXX Caught on Last Hunt/Fish Trip Numeric 21

IntroductionA required step for presenting results of clinical studies is the declaration of participants demographic and baseline characteristics as claimed by the FDAAA 801. The common workflow to accomplish this task is to export the clinical data from the used electronic data capture system and import it into statistical software like SAS software or IBM SPSS. This software requires trained users, who have to implement the analysis individually for each item. These expenditures may become an obstacle for small studies. Objective of this work is to design, implement and evaluate an open source application, called ODM Data Analysis, for the semi-automatic analysis of clinical study data.MethodsThe system requires clinical data in the CDISC Operational Data Model format. After uploading the file, its syntax and data type conformity of the collected data is validated. The completeness of the study data is determined and basic statistics, including illustrative charts for each item, are generated. Datasets from four clinical studies have been used to evaluate the application’s performance and functionality.ResultsThe system is implemented as an open source web application (available at https://odmanalysis.uni-muenster.de) and also provided as Docker image which enables an easy distribution and installation on local systems. Study data is only stored in the application as long as the calculations are performed which is compliant with data protection endeavors. Analysis times are below half an hour, even for larger studies with over 6000 subjects.DiscussionMedical experts have ensured the usefulness of this application to grant an overview of their collected study data for monitoring purposes and to generate descriptive statistics without further user interaction. The semi-automatic analysis has its limitations and cannot replace the complex analysis of statisticians, but it can be used as a starting point for their examination and reporting.

A SPSS file with data used in the statistical analysis. Covariates were excluded in the file due to restrictions of the ethical permission. However a complete file is provided for researchers after request at publication@ventorp.com. (SAV)

DesignA cross-sectional, web-based survey design was employed, consisting of validated self-report measures designed to capture demographic information, insulin use, diabetes-related distress, disordered eating, and body shape perception.Inclusion/Exclusion criteria. Participants were eligible to participate if they self-described as being aged 18 or over, with a diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes and on a prescribed insulin regimen. They were required to be at least one-year post-diagnosis, as people who have been prescribed insulin for less than one year may not have settled into a routine with insulin management and may mismanage their insulin unintentionally. Additionally, participants were required to reside within the UK, as this removed a potential confound of cost or resources as a barrier to accessing insulin. People with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were excluded from the study, as the pathophysiology and treatment of the two illnesses are quite different. For example, as those with type 2 diabetes still produce some degree of insulin naturally, non-adherence to an insulin regimen is likely to have less of an immediate impact than for those with type 1 diabetes, who produce no insulin naturally (Peyrot et al., 2010). Potential participants were provided with a link to the study which provided detailed information about the study, details of informed consent and their right to withdraw. When the survey was completed, or participants chose to exit, a debrief page was presented with signposts towards various supports and resources. Participants were offered the opportunity to receive a brief summary of findings from the study and given the chance to win a £25 Amazon gift voucher, both of which required an email address to be supplied through separate surveys, so as to protect the confidentiality of responses. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the chair of the relevant Ethics Committee.Statistical AnalysisPrior to beginning the study, an estimate of the minimum number of participants required was calculated using statistical power tables (Clark-Carter, 2010) and G*Power version 3.1. Based on previous research (Ames, 2017), a medium effect size (.5) was used to calculate sample sizes with a power of .8 (Clark-Carter, 2010), which generated a necessary sample size of 208. All analyses were adequately powered.Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac version 25. MeasuresDemographic Information. This section collected basic demographic information, including age; gender; country of residence; and current or historical diagnosis of an eating disorder. The data were screened to ensure participants met the inclusion criteria.Insulin Measure. A 16-item questionnaire has been designed to assess rates and reasons for insulin non-adherence (Ames, 2017). Eating Disorder Psychopathology. The Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) assesses eating disorder psychopathology, and data from this measure was key to informing the primary research questions. It was designed as a self-report version of the interview-based Eating Disorders Examination (EDE; 32), which is considered to be the gold standard measure (Fairburn, Wilson, & Schleimer, 1993). The EDE-Q assesses four subscales: Restraint, Eating Concern, Shape Concern, and Weight Concern. It was found to be an adequate alternative to the EDE (Fairburn & Beglin, 1994). Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ). The Body Shape Questionnaire is a 34-item self-report measure, designed to assess concerns regarding body shape and the phenomenological experience of “feeling fat” (Cooper, Taylor, Cooper, & Fairbum, 1987). The BSQ targets body image as a central feature of both AN and BN and thus is a useful supplementary measure of eating disorder psychopathology. Diabetes Distress. The Diabetes Distress Scale (Polonsky et al., 2005) is a 17-item scale designed to measure diabetes-related emotional distress via four domains: emotional burden, physician distress, interpersonal distress and regimenn distress. This measure was included on the basis of results from Ames (Ames, 2017), which identified diabetes-related emotional distress as a key reason for insulin non-adherence in type 1 diabetes. Inclusion in this study allowed for further investigation of its role.

Data from: Doctoral dissertation; Preprint article entitled: Managers' and physicians’ perception of palm vein technology adoption in the healthcare industry. Formats of the files associated with dataset: CSV; SAV. SPSS setup files can be used to generate native SPSS file formats such as SPSS system files and SPSS portable files. SPSS setup files generally include the following SPSS sections: DATA LIST: Assigns the name, type, decimal specification (if any), and specifies the beginning and ending column locations for each variable in the data file. Users must replace the "physical-filename" with host computer-specific input file specifications. For example, users on Windows platforms should replace "physical-filename" with "C:\06512-0001-Data.txt" for the data file named "06512-0001-Data.txt" located on the root directory "C:\". VARIABLE LABELS: Assigns descriptive labels to all variables. Variable labels and variable names may be identical for some variables. VALUE LABELS: Assigns descriptive labels to codes in the data file. Not all variables necessarily have assigned value labels. MISSING VALUES: Declares user-defined missing values. Not all variables in the data file necessarily have user-defined missing values. These values can be treated specially in data transformations, statistical calculations, and case selection. MISSING VALUE RECODE: Sets user-defined numeric missing values to missing as interpreted by the SPSS system. Only variables with user-defined missing values are included in the statements. ABSTRACT: The purpose of the article is to examine the factors that influence the adoption of palm vein technology by considering the healthcare managers’ and physicians’ perception, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology theoretical foundation. A quantitative approach was used for this study through which an exploratory research design was utilized. A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to responders who were managers and physicians in the healthcare industry and who had previous experience with palm vein technology. The perceived factors tested for correlation with adoption were perceived usefulness, complexity, security, peer influence, and relative advantage. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to test the correlation between the perceived factors and palm vein technology. The results showed that perceived usefulness, security, and peer influence are important factors for adoption. Study limitations included purposive sampling from a single industry (healthcare) and limited literature was available with regard to managers’ and physicians’ perception of palm vein technology adoption in the healthcare industry. Researchers could focus on an examination of the impact of mediating variables on palm vein technology adoption in future studies. The study offers managers insight into the important factors that need to be considered in adopting palm vein technology. With biometric technology becoming pervasive, the study seeks to provide managers with the insight in managing the adoption of palm vein technology. KEYWORDS: biometrics, human identification, image recognition, palm vein authentication, technology adoption, user acceptance, palm vein technology

This dataset consists of three data folders including all related documents of the online survey conducted within the NESP 3.2.3 project (Tropical Water Quality Hub) and a survey format document representing how the survey was designed. Apart from participants’ demographic information, the survey consists of three sections: conjoint analysis, picture rating and open question. Correspondent outcome of these three sections are downloaded from Qualtrics website and used for three different data analysis processes.

Related data to the first section “conjoint analysis” is saved in the Conjoint analysis folder which contains two sub-folders. The first one includes a plan file of SAV. Format representing the design suggestion by SPSS orthogonal analysis for testing beauty factors and 9 photoshoped pictures used in the survey. The second (i.e. Final results) contains 1 SAV. file named “data1” which is the imported results of conjoint analysis section in SPSS, 1 SPS. file named “Syntax1” representing the code used to run conjoint analysis, 2 SAV. files as the output of conjoint analysis by SPSS, and 1 SPV file named “Final output” showing results of further data analysis by SPSS on the basis of utility and importance data.

Related data to the second section “Picture rating” is saved into Picture rating folder including two subfolders. One subfolder contains 2500 pictures of Great Barrier Reef used in the rating survey section. These pictures are organised by named and stored in two folders named as “Survey Part 1” and “Survey Part 2” which are correspondent with two parts of the rating survey sections. The other subfolder “Rating results” consist of one XLSX. file representing survey results downloaded from Qualtric website.

Finally, related data to the open question is saved in “Open question” folder. It contains one csv. file and one PDF. file recording participants’ answers to the open question as well as one PNG. file representing a screenshot of Leximancer analysis outcome.

Methods: This dataset resulted from the input and output of an online survey regarding how people assess the beauty of Great Barrier Reef. This survey was designed for multiple purposes including three main sections: (1) conjoint analysis (ranking 9 photoshopped pictures to determine the relative importance weights of beauty attributes), (2) picture rating (2500 pictures to be rated) and (3) open question on the factors that makes a picture of the Great Barrier Reef beautiful in participants’ opinion (determining beauty factors from tourist perspective). Pictures used in this survey were downloaded from public sources such as websites of the Tourism and Events Queensland and Tropical Tourism North Queensland as well as tourist sharing sources (i.e. Flickr). Flickr pictures were downloaded using the key words “Great Barrier Reef”. About 10,000 pictures were downloaded in August and September 2017. 2,500 pictures were then selected based on several research criteria: (1) underwater pictures of GBR, (2) without humans, (3) viewed from 1-2 metres from objects and (4) of high resolution.

The survey was created on Qualtrics website and launched on 4th October 2017 using Qualtrics survey service. Each participant rated 50 pictures randomly selected from the pool of 2500 survey pictures. 772 survey completions were recorded and 705 questionnaires were eligible for data analysis after filtering unqualified questionnaires. Conjoint analysis data was imported to IBM SPSS using SAV. format and the output was saved using SPV. format. Automatic aesthetic rating of 2500 Great Barrier Reef pictures –all these pictures are rated (1 – 10 scale) by at least 10 participants and this dataset was saved in a XLSX. file which is used to train and test an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based system recognising and assessing the beauty of natural scenes. Answers of the open-question were saved in a XLSX. file and a PDF. file to be employed for theme analysis by Leximancer software.

Further information can be found in the following publication: Becken, S., Connolly R., Stantic B., Scott N., Mandal R., Le D., (2018), Monitoring aesthetic value of the Great Barrier Reef by using innovative technologies and artificial intelligence, Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report No 15.

Format: The Online survey dataset includes one PDF file representing the survey format with all sections and questions. It also contains three subfolders, each has multiple files. The subfolder of Conjoint analysis contains an image of the 9 JPG. Pictures, 1 SAV. format file for the Orthoplan subroutine outcome and 5 outcome documents (i.e. 3 SAV. files, 1 SPS. file, 1 SPV. file). The subfolder of Picture rating contains a capture of the 2500 pictures used in the survey, 1 excel file for rating results. The subfolder of Open question includes 1 CSV. file, 1 PDF. file representing participants’ answers and one PNG. file for the analysis outcome.

Data Dictionary:

Card 1: Picture design option number 1 suggested by SPSS orthogonal analysis. Importance value: The relative importance weight of each beauty attribute calculated by SPSS conjoint analysis. Utility: Score reflecting influential valence and degree of each beauty attribute on beauty score. Syntax: Code used to run conjoint analysis by SPSS Leximancer: Specialised software for qualitative data analysis. Concept map: A map showing the relationship between concepts identified Q1_1: Beauty score of the picture Q1_1 by the correspondent participant (i.e. survey part 1) Q2.1_1: Beauty score of the picture Q2.1_1 by the correspondent participant (i.e. survey part 2) Conjoint _1: Ranking of the picture 1 designed for conjoint analysis by the correspondent participant

References: Becken, S., Connolly R., Stantic B., Scott N., Mandal R., Le D., (2018), Monitoring aesthetic value of the Great Barrier Reef by using innovative technologies and artificial intelligence, Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report No 15.

Data Location:

This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data esp3\3.2.3_Aesthetic-value-GBR

The data was obtained through a questionnaire survey. We distributed measurement questionnaires to 300 full-time employees in China and collected 258 valid questionnaires. For the collected data, we use Excel to input and analyze it in SPSS software. The data is all personal data, and the individuals providing the data are all Chinese citizens. The survey was conducted in the southeastern region of China from January 2023 to April 2023. The data consists of 258 rows, each representing the survey test results of one respondent. The data consists of 33 columns, with the first column representing the sample number, and each subsequent column representing the results of each question for the control and measurement variables.

This folders contains three types of files. The first one is in excel format. The excel files consist of the raw data, descriptive data that describes the background of the participants, correlation and confirmatory Factor analysis outputs, and survey questionnaire in Malay and English. The second file type contains raw data in SPSS and the output in SPSS. The third file type contains the survey questionnaire; the items are bilingual.

Field data is collected through a structured questionnaire. The questionniare included direct questions with options to answer and also statement based questions to be responded in Likert Scale. Mainly the statement based questions were used to assess the fire disaster coping capacity of the community of the study area. Others questions supported to understand limitations or strengths regarding the coping capacity. Data cleaning was performed before providing input in SPSS.

Background:

These studies aim to investigate the effects of pandemics of varying severity on death thought accessibility in two studies while controlling for health anxiety. Study 1 (n = 203) examined the effect of standard MS, severe pandemic, mild pandemic, and dental conditions on death thought accessibility as assessed by the death word fragment task (DWFT). Study 2 (n = 163) was conducted with more sensitive death thought accessibility measures such as the lexical decision task and dot probe task.

Data collection for Study 2 was conducted between December 2021 to February 2022, during which COVID-19 continued to ravage the world. The study design is the same as Study 1, except for the removal of the mild pandemic condition and a change of dependent variables (DVs) to assess DTA. The mild pandemic condition was removed as it did not trigger significant perception of threats in our pilot study and there were no significant effects of mild pandemic condition on DTA in Study 1. The DWFT was replaced with the Death Anxiety Scale (DAS), lexical-decision task (LDT), and the dot-probe task (DPT).

Similar to Study 1, Study 2 hypothesizes that the pandemic condition and the standard MS condition will yield significantly higher levels of death cognitions than the control conditions after a time delay, even when we control for health anxiety after a time delay. Study 2 was pre-registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4SD2J).

Information pertaining to Study 1 can be found: https://doi.org/10.25903/sx6c-re28

This data record contains:

1 x SPSS (.sav) file containing input data and calculation of death anxiety, response time on lexical decision task and attention bias index from dot probe task used in analysis. File also available in Open Document (.ods) format.

--//--

Software/equipment used to collect the data: Qualtrics

Software/equipment used to analyse the data: SPSS

IBM SPSS-type data and variables file from the three-scenario experiment in the Turret of Oviedo Cathedral 2025

Table of performance benchmarks.

Raw data, Mplus input files, and data documentation of the following research paper: Burk, C. L. & Wiese, B. S. (in press). How to alleviate the agony of providing negative feedback: emotion regulation strategies affect hormonal stress responses to a managerial task. Hormones and Behavior. Containing: • dataset with raw data in SPSS and *.dat formats • 10 Mplus input files concerning the comparison of latent growth models • four plus input files concerning the predictive models • a data supplement documentation including variable documentation, tables further describing the models and structural diagrams of the models

Data was collected between 13 Nov and 1 Dec 2016 in in the Bamenda Highlands in Cameroon (6°5’-6°8’ N and 10°17’-10°20 E). To create this data we used Raven Pro (Cornell Lab of Ornithology), and IBM SPSS Statistics v. 27 (IBM Corp, Chicago, IL, USA). The final version is created in Microsoft Excel file. Column heading are describe in worksheet called ‘legend’.

The project aimed to understand whether young adults who take care of a loved-one (young adult caregivers; YACs) differ in their perceived life balance and psychosocial functioning as compared to young adults without care responsibilities (non-YACs). In addition, this project aimed to understand how YACs evaluated a tool to support informal careg

ivers. This tool (“Caregiver Balance”; https://balans.mantelzorg.nl) is specifically designed to support informal caregivers taking care of a loved-one in the palliative phase and could potentially be adapted to meet the needs of YACs.

In this project, we collected data of 74 YACs and 246 non-YACs. Both groups completed questionnaires, and the YACs engaged in a usability test. The questionnaire data was used to compare the perceived life balance and psychological functioning between YACs and non-YACs, aged 18-25 years, and studying in the Netherlands (study 1). Furthermore, we examined the relationship between positive aspects of caregiving and relational factors, in particular, relationship quality and collaborative coping among YACs (study 2). Finally, we conducted a usability study where we interviewed YACs to understand the needs and preferences towards a supportive web-based solution (study 3).

Table: Study details and associated files

    Number
    Study Name
    Study Aim
    Study Type
    Type of data
    Associated Files


    1
    Perceived life balance among young adult students: a comparison between caregivers and non-caregivers
    Compare the perceived life balance and psychological functions among student young adult caregivers aged 18-25 years (YACs) with young adult without care responsibilities
    Survey study
    Quantitative

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_RawData

ENTWINE_PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey_YACs_nonYACs_CleanedData

ENTWINE_ PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey _Syntax

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_codebook

    2
    Examining the relationship of positive aspects of caregiving with relational factors among young adult caregivers
    Examine the relationship of positive aspects of caregiving with relational factors, in particular, relationship quality and collaborative coping among a particular group of ICGs, young adult caregivers (YACs), aged 18-25 years.
    Survey study
    Quantitative

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_RawData

ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_YACs_cleanedData

ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_Syntax

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_codebook

    3
    Exploring the support needs of young adult caregivers, their issues, and preferences towards a web-based tool
    Explore (i) challenges and support needs of YACs in caregiving, (ii) their needs towards the content of the ‘MantelzorgBalans’ tool, and (iii) issues they encountered in using the tool and their preferences for adaptation of the tool.
    Usability study

Qualitative and Quantitative

ENTWINE_Needs_Web-basedTools_YACs_Interview_Usability_RawData [to be determined whether data can be shared]

ENTWINE_Needs_Web-basedTools_YACs_Questionnaires_RawData

Description of the files to be uploaded

Study 1: Perceived life balance among young adult students: a comparison between caregivers and non-caregivers

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_RawData: SPSS file with the complete, raw, pseudonomyzed survey data. The following cleaned dataset ‘ENTWINE_PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey_YACs_nonYACs_CleanedData’ was generated from this raw data.

ENTWINE_PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey_YACs_nonYACs_CleanedData: SPSS file with the cleaned dataset having the following metadata -

Population: young adult caregivers and young adult non-caregivers aged 18-25 years studying in the Netherlands;

Number of participants: 320 participants in total (74 young adult caregivers and 246 young adult non-caregivers)

Time point of measurement: Data was collected from December 2020 till March 2022

Type of data: quantitative

Measurements included, topics covered: perceived life balance (based on the Occupational balance questionnaire [1]), burnout (Burnout Assessment Tool [2]), negative and positive affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule [3]), and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale [4])

Short procedure conducted to receive data: online survey on Qualtrics platform

SPSS syntax file ‘ENTWINE_ PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey _Syntax’ was used to clean and analyse ENTWINE_PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey_YACs_nonYACs_CleanedData dataset

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_codebook: Codebook having the variable names, variable labels, and the associated code values and code labels for ENTWINE_PerceivedLifeBalanceSurvey_YACs_nonYACs_CleanedData dataset

Study 2: Examining the relationship of positive aspects of caregiving with relational factors among young adult caregivers

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_RawData: SPSS file with the complete, raw survey data. The following cleaned dataset ‘ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_YACs_cleanedData’ was generated from this raw data.

ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_YACs_cleanedData: SPSS file with the cleaned dataset having the following metadata -

Population: young adult caregivers aged 18-25 years studying in the Netherlands;

Number of participants: 74 young adult caregivers

Time point of measurement: Data was collected from December 2020 till March 2022

Type of data: quantitative

Measurements included, topics covered: positive aspects of caregiving (positive aspects of caregiving scale [5]), relationship quality (Relationship Assessment Scale [6]), collaborative coping (Perception of Collaboration Questionnaire [7] )

Short procedure conducted to receive data: online survey on Qualtrics platform.

SPSS syntax file ‘ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_Syntax’ was used to clean and analyse ‘ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_YACs_cleanedData’ dataset.

ENTWINE_YACs_nonYACsSurvey_codebook: Codebook having the variable names, variable labels, and the associated code values and code labels for ENTWINE_PositiveAspectsCaregiving_Survey_YACs_cleanedData dataset.

Study 3: Exploring the support needs of young adult caregivers, their issues, and preferences towards a web-based tool

ENTWINE_Needs_Web-basedTools_YACs_Interview_Usability_RawData: Pseudonymized word file including 13 transcripts having the qualitative data from interview and usability testing with the following metadata –

Population: young adult caregivers aged 18-25 years studying in the Netherlands; 13 participants in total

Time point of measurement: data was collected from October 2021 till February 2022

Type of data: qualitative and quantitative

Measurements included, topics covered: Caregiving challenges, support needs and barriers, usability needs, preferences and issues towards eHealth tool

Short procedure conducted to receive data: Online interviews

ENTWINE_Needs_Web-basedTools_YACs_Questionnaires_RawData: Excel sheet having the quantitative questionnaire raw data with the following metadata

Population: young adult caregivers aged 18-25 years studying in the Netherlands; 13 participants in total

Time point of measurement: data was collected from October 2021 till February 2022

Type of data: qualitative and quantitative

Measurements included, topics covered: User experience (user experience questionnaire [8]), satisfaction of using the web-based tool (After scenario questionnaire [9]), Intention of use and persuasive potential of the eHealth tool (persuasive potential questionnaire [10])

Short procedure conducted to receive data: Online questionnaire

Data collection details

All data was collected, processed, and archived in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles under the supervision of the Principal Investigator.

The principal researcher and a team of experts (supervisors) in the field of health psychology and eHealth (University of Twente, The Netherlands) reviewed the scientific quality of the research. The studies were piloted and tested before starting the collection of the data. For the survey study, the researchers monitored the data collection weekly to ensure it was running smoothly.

The ethical review board, Centrale Ethische Toetsingscommissie of the University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands (CTc), granted approval for this research (Registration number: 202000623).

Participants digitally signed informed consent for participating in the study.

Terms of use

Interested persons can send a data request by contacting the principal investigator (Prof. dr. Mariët Hagedoorn, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands mariet.hageboorn@umcg.nl).

Interested persons must provide the research plan (including the research question, methodology, and analysis plan) when requesting for the data.

The principal investigator reviews the research plan on its quality and fit with the data and informs the interested person(s).

(Pseudo)anonymous data of those participants who agreed on the reuse of their data is available on request for 15 years from the time of completion of the PhD project.

Data will be available in Excel or SPSS format alongside the variable codebook after the completion of this PhD project and publication of the study results.

References

1. Wagman P, Håkansson C. Introducing the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ). Scand J Occup Ther 2014;21(3):227–231. PMID:24649971

2. Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout assessment tool (Bat)—development, validity, and reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(24):1–21. PMID:33352940

3. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The

I attach data and code to reproduce analyses for manuscript - Personality and Team Identification Predict Violent Intentions Among Soccer Supporters. I have attached the following data files: - Soccer_supporters_raw.sav - Soccer_data_raw.csv - Soccer_data.xlsx - Soccerpathmodel.txt

Codebook: - CodeBook_soccersupportersdata.csv*Note that this codebook applies to the raw data.

And code: Syntax_soccer_supporters.sps (to be opened in SPSS)*Note that this code is also available in non-proprietary .txt format: Syntax_soccer_supporters.txt

Soccerpathmodel.inp (to be opened in MPLUS (Muthén & Muthén, 2012, see also https://www.statmodel.com/ ).

@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:6.0pt; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:12.0pt; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:11.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Cambria",serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}.MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} *Note that this code is also available in non-proprietal .txt format: soccerpathmodelcode.txt

To reproduce the results for this manuscript, please first open the file “Soccer_supporters_raw.sav” in SPSS (ideally version 25, with PROCESS add-on), and run the accompanying syntax: “Syntax_soccer_supporters.sps”. I also attach a non-proprietary version of this raw data - Soccer_data_raw.csv

Note that the code/syntax to run mediation analyses with PROCESS, is not available, since PROCESS does not allow for the pasting of syntax. So this part of the analyses needs to be completed manually through the point-and-click interface.

The remaining analyses were conducted in MPLUS. To do so, the original raw SPSS file was saved (after recoding and computing index variables), as a text file. We have also included this data in .xlsx format - see file Soccer data.xlsx

To reproduce the path model tested in MPLUS, run the input file “soccerpathmodel.inp” ensuring that the accompanying file - Soccerpathmodel.txt is located in the same folder.

Table illustrating the five different categories the application distinguishes and their calculated statistics and charts.

survey input into SPSS

This dataset consists of three data folders for the eye-tracking experiment conducted within the NESP 3.2.3 project (Tropical Water Quality Hub): Folder (1) The folder of Eye-tracking videos contains 66 Tobii recordings of participants’ eye movements on screen, Folder (2) The Heatmaps folder includes 21 heatmaps created by Tobii eye-tracking software on the basis of 66 participants’ data and Folder (3) The input folder has 21 original pictures used in eye-tracking experiment. Moreover, The dataset also includes 1 excel file representing eye-tracking data extracted from Tobii software and participant interview results, 1 SPV. file as the input of SPSS data analysis process and 1 SPV. file as the output of data analysis process.

Methods:
This dataset resulted from both input and output data of eye-tracking experiments. The input includes 21 underwater pictures of the Great Barrier Reef, selected from online searching with the keyword “Great Barrier Reef”. These pictures are imported to Tobii eye-tracking software to design the eye-tracking experiments. 66 participants were recruited using convenience sampling in this study. They were asked to sit in front of a screen-based eye-tracking equipment (i.e. Tobii T60 eye-tracker) after providing informed consent. Participants were free to look at each picture on screen as long as they wanted during which their eye movements were recorded. They also rated each picture on a 10-point beauty scale (1-Not beautiful at all, 10-Very beautiful) and a 10-point expectation scale (1-Not at all, 10-Very much). After the experiment, 40 subjects were also interviewed to identify the areas of interest (AOI) in each picture and to rate the beauty of these AOIs. Eye-tracking data was then extracted from Tobii eye-tracking device including participants’ eye-tracking recordings, heatmaps (i.e. images showing viewers’ attention focus) and raw eye-tracking measures (i.e. picture beauty, time to first fixation, fixation count, fixation duration and total visit time) using XLSX. download format. Raw eye-tracking data was then imported to IBM SPSS using SAV. format for data analysis which results in a SPV. output file.

Further information can be found in the following publication:
Scott, N., Le, D, Becken, S., and Connelly, R. (2018 Submitted) Measuring perceived beauty of the Great Barrier Reef using eye tracking. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
Becken, S., Connolly R., Stantic B., Scott N., Mandal R., Le D., (2018), Monitoring aesthetic value of the Great Barrier Reef by using innovative technologies and artificial intelligence, Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report No 15.



Format:
The project dataset includes 132 eye-tracking videos of AVI. format, 21 heatmaps of PNG. format, 21 pictures of JPEG. format, 1 XLSX. format document representing raw eye-tracking measures and interview data, 1 SAV. format document as the input of data analysis and 1 SPV. format file showing data analysis results.


Data Dictionary:

Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10: Names of pictures used in the eye-tracking experiment 2.
3Q1, 3Q2, 3Q3, 3Q4, 3Q5, 3Q6, 3Q7, 3Q8, 3Q9, 3Q10, 3Q11: Names of pictures used in the eye-tracking experiment 3.

Raw Eye tracking Measurements excel spreadsheets:

Tab - Picture:
INDEX: the 10-point scale showed to participants
VALUE: meaning of the 10-point scale
Q1.1: Beauty score
Q1.2: Expectation score

Tab - Area of Interest (AOI)"
TIME TO FIRST FIXATION_Q1: Time to first fixation in the picture Q1 (i.e. i.e. the average time from the beginning of the recording until the respective picture was first fixated upon)
TOTAL FIXATION DURATION_Q1: Fixation duration in the picture Q1 (i.e. the average length of all fixations during all recordings in the whole picture). A longer fixation means that the object is more engaging in some way.
FIXATION COUNT_Q1: Fixation count in the picture Q1 (i.e. the average number of fixations in the picture).
TOTAL VISIT DURATION_Q1: Total time visit for the picture Q1 (i.e. the average time participants spent looking at a picture).
TIME TO FIRST FIXATION_AOI1: Time to first fixation in the AOI identified in the picture Q1 (i.e. i.e. the average time from the beginning of the recording until the respective picture was first fixated upon)
TOTAL FIXATION DURATION_AOI1: Fixation duration in the AOI identified in the picture Q1 (i.e. the average length of all fixations during all recordings in the whole picture). A longer fixation means that the object is more engaging in some way.
FIXATION COUNT_AOI1: Fixation count in the AOI identified in the picture Q1 (i.e. the average number of fixations in the picture).
TOTAL VISIT DURATION_AOI1: Total time visit for the AOI identified in the picture Q1 (i.e. the average time participants spent looking at a picture).

Tab - AOI interview:
AOI IDENTIFIED: The AOI that is the most mentioned by participants
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: the number of participants who mentioned the AOI in the previous column.
BEAUTY MEAN: The average beauty score of the correspondent AOI rated by 40 participants.
AOI-1: The AOI identified by the correspondent participant.
RATING: the beauty score associated to the AOI identified by the correspondent participant.

Tab - Analysis:
REC: Recording
PICTURE: Picture number
BEAUTY: The average beauty score of the correspondent picture by 66 participants
EXPECTATION: The average expectation score of the correspondent picture by 66 participants
AOI BEAUTY: The average beauty score of the AOI identified in the correspondent picture by interviewed participants.
PICTURE 1st TIME: The average time to first fixation in the correspondent picture (i.e. i.e. the average time from the beginning of the recording until the respective picture was first fixated upon) by 66 participants
PFDURATION: The average fixation duration in the correspondent picture (i.e. the average length of all fixations during all recordings in the whole picture) by 66 participants
PFCOUNT: The average fixation count in the correspondent picture (i.e. the average number of fixations in the picture) by 66 participants
PTING VISIT: The average of total time visit for the correspondent picture (i.e. the average time participants spent looking at a picture) by 66 participants
AOI 1stTIME: The average time to first fixation in the AOI identified in the correspondent picture (i.e. i.e. the average time from the beginning of the recording until the respective picture was first fixated upon) by 66 participants
AOIFDURATION: The average fixation duration in the AOI identified in the correspondent picture (i.e. the average length of all fixations during all recordings in the whole picture) by 66 participants
AOIFCOUNT: The average fixation count in the the AOI identified in correspondent picture (i.e. the average number of fixations in the picture) by 66 participants
AOITIMEVISIT: The average of total time visit for the AOI identified in the correspondent picture (i.e. the average time participants spent looking at a picture) by 66 participants



References:

Scott, N., Le, D, Becken, S., and Connelly, R. (2018 Submitted) Measuring perceived beauty of the Great Barrier Reef using eye tracking. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

Becken, S., Connolly R., Stantic B., Scott N., Mandal R., Le D., (2018), Monitoring aesthetic value of the Great Barrier Reef by using innovative technologies and artificial intelligence, Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report No 15.


Data Location:

This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data
esp3\3.2.3_Aesthetic-value-GBR

Table of dataset characteristics used for the benchmark.