Home / Dashboards / Data analysis
Dashboards · Level 2 of 3

Data analysis dashboards

Eleven dashboards on the data-outcome side: what is the data showing across descriptive, comparative, regression, longitudinal, and equity views? Two surfaced (Description, Open-Ended); the rest live in the More analyses dropdown so the surfaced row stays focused on credibility-first reads.

Surfaced tab

Description

What do people's answers show?

Workplace Engagement Pulse22 items · n=312
Strength IndexDescriptionReliabilityValidity+5
Composite mean
4.07
on 1-5 scale
SD
0.71
tight spread
Lowest item
3.4
Q12 Recognition
Highest item
4.5
Q22 Pride
Composite distribution
mean 4.07

Per-item mean, SD, distribution shape, response-over-time chart, and distribution histogram. Per-group rollups when a grouping variable is available.

Surfaced tab

Open-Ended

What themes appear in written responses?

Workplace Engagement Pulse47 written answers
ValidityOpen-EndedResponse Quality+4
Theme overview
Workloadn=18
Recognitionn=12
Career pathn=9
Toolingn=8
Q3 What gets in the way?
"Workload feels uneven across the team."
"More handoffs between teams than I expected."
"Tooling could be tighter; we lose time on context switches."

Aggregate open-text responses across every open question. Theme overview, theme explorer, response review table. AI work gated behind a Generate button so you control the spend.

More analyses · Phase 61

Compare

How do groups differ?

Workplace Engagement Pulse4 departments · ANOVA p=.001
ComparePre/PostSubgroupsEquity+5
Group means with 95% CI
Engineering4.21
Sales4.05
Support3.95
Operations3.78
Verdict
Meaningful difference
Engineering vs Operations: Welch t = 3.84, d = 0.51 [0.21, 0.81]. The gap is in the meaningful tier.

Welch's t-test, Mann-Whitney U, one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis. Cohen's d with 95% CI and eta-squared. AI verdict card translates the test into HR language.

More analyses · Phase 62

Pre/Post

How did people change?

Leadership Program 2026Paired n=78 · d_z=0.42
ComparePre/PostSubgroups+6
Paired t
3.71
df=77, p<.001
Cohen's d_z
0.42
small-meaningful
RCI 95%
32
improved
Reliable Change Index, 95% confidence
Improved32 (41%)
Unchanged38 (49%)
Declined8 (10%)

Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank, Cohen's d_z, Jacobson-Truax Reliable Change Index at 90, 95, 99% confidence with per-respondent improved / unchanged / declined counts.

More analyses · Phase 65

Subgroups

How do outcomes split across groups?

Workplace Engagement PulseGroup: Department
ComparePre/PostSubgroups+6
SubgroupnMeand vs all
Engineering844.21+0.18
Sales664.05+0.02
Support583.95-0.13
Operations1043.78-0.34
Hidden for k-anonymity (n < 5): 1 group

Per-subgroup mean, SD, 95% CI, and Cohen's d versus everyone else, ranked by absolute gap. K-anonymity hides rows below the privacy threshold so a department of three never appears.

More analyses · Phase 145

Equity Gaps

Where are the equity gaps across the org?

Workplace Engagement PulseScore 43 / Large gaps
SubgroupsEquityPredictorsKey Drivers+5
43/ 100
Equity Gap Score
Large gaps
Largest gap: tenure-band axis with Cohen's d 0.82. 5 axes analyzed; 2 subgroups hidden for privacy.
AxisMax |d|Verdict
Tenure band0.82Large
Race / ethnicity0.55Meaningful
Role / level0.28Small
Age band0.14Parity

Per-grouping-axis means, omnibus ANOVA, pairwise Cohen's d, and a 0-100 Equity Gap Score where 100 = parity. K-anonymity floor of 5 hides small subgroups entirely.

More analyses · Phase 68/69

Predictors

What predicts this outcome?

Workplace Engagement PulseOutcome: Engagement
EquityPredictorsKey DriversIRT+4
Mode
Mediation
X to M to Y
Indirect
0.18
95% CI [.07, .29]
0.42
OLS
Mediation path
X Manager Y

Three modes: Simple (OLS or logistic regression), Mediation (X to M to Y; bootstrap percentile or BCa CI on the indirect effect), Moderation (Johnson-Neyman plot). VIF flagged for multicollinearity.

More analyses · Phase 86/143

Key Drivers

Which factors matter most?

Workplace Engagement Pulse5 drivers · R² 0.48
PredictorsKey DriversIRTMLM+4
Importance · Johnson Relative Weights
Workload28%
Recognition18%
Manager support16%
Career path8%
Compensation4%
Action Priority Map
Protect Monitor Fix First Do Not Overinvest Workload Recog Manager

Pearson r per driver, standardized regression betas, and Johnson's Relative Weights for continuous outcomes. Plus the Action Priority Map 2x2 with Fix First / Protect / Do Not Overinvest / Monitor labels.

More analyses · Phase 70/84/85

Item Response Theory

How do items behave across trait levels?

Workplace Engagement PulseModel: Graded Response
Key DriversIRTMLMTrends
Items
22
Likert · GRM
Mean a
1.62
discrimination
Marginal rel
0.88
at theta=0
Item characteristic curves
Q07 Q14 Q12 theta (latent trait)

Four models from one dropdown: Graded Response (default for Likert), 2PL and 3PL for dichotomous items, two-dimensional MIRT with closed-form Varimax rotation. Test information function plus item characteristic curves.

More analyses · Phase 81/83

Multilevel Model

Do nested groups change the effect?

Belonging study, n=8243-level · L2 ICC 0.18
IRTMLMTrends
L1 var
0.62
student
L2 ICC
0.18
classroom
L3 ICC
0.09
school
LR vs OLS
p<.001
3-level wins
Variance decomposition
L1: student73%
L2: classroom18%
L3: school9%

Two-level linear mixed-effects (REML / EM), two-level logistic GLMM (PQL), three-level linear. ICC at every level, Satterthwaite or Kenward-Roger df corrections, LR test against the simpler model.

More analyses · Phase 142

Trends

What is changing over time?

Quarterly engagement pulse4 waves · slipping
MLMTrends
28/ 100
Trend Score
Trending down
Composite Likert mean dropped 0.32 from Q1 to Q2 2026. Significant at p=.012.
Composite mean by wave
Q3-25 Q4-25 Q1-26 Q2-26

Wave detection from channel tags or quarterly bins. Trend Score 0-100, per-wave composite mean line, per-construct sparklines, Welch's t-test current vs prior wave.