Merge pull request #1 from jonkeane/review

Some minor documentation suggestions

R/shift_mctq.R

@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_w_m}{
 #'   A `logical` value indicating if the subject has any particular reasons for
-#'   why he/she __cannot__ freely choose his/her sleep times on workdays
+#'   why they __cannot__ freely choose their sleep times on workdays
 #'   __between two morning shifts__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "There are particular reasons why I __cannot__ freely
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@
 #'   R class: `logical`.}
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_why_w_m}{
-#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose his/her sleep
+#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose their sleep
 #'   times on workdays __between two morning shifts__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "If "Yes": Child(ren)/pet(s) ( ___ ) Hobbies ( ___ )
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_f_m}{
 #'   A `logical` value indicating if the subject has any particular reasons for
-#'   why he/she __cannot__ freely choose his/her sleep times on work-free days
+#'   why they __cannot__ freely choose their sleep times on work-free days
 #'   __between two free days after morning shifts__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "There are particular reasons why I __cannot__ freely
@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@
 #'   R class: `logical`.}
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_why_f_m}{
-#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose his/her sleep
+#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose their sleep
 #'   times on work-free days __between two free days after morning shifts__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "If "Yes": Child(ren)/pet(s) ( ___ ) Hobbies ( ___ )

R/sjl.R

@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
 #' uses the longer interval between the two, considering a two-day window.
 #'
 #' This method may help with special contexts, like when dealing with
-#' shift-workers that have a greater than 12 hours distance between his/her
+#' shift-workers that have a greater than 12 hours distance between their
 #' mid-sleep hours.
 #'
 #' @param msw A `hms` object corresponding to the __local time of mid-sleep on

R/std_mctq.R

@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_f}{
 #'   A `logical` value indicating if the subject has any particular reasons for
-#'   why he/she __cannot__ freely choose his/her sleep times on __work-free
+#'   why they __cannot__ freely choose their sleep times on __work-free
 #'   days__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "There are particular reasons why I __cannot__ freely
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@
 #'   R class: `logical`.}
 #'
 #'   \item{reasons_why_f}{
-#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose his/her sleep
+#'   Particular reasons for why the subject cannot freely choose their sleep
 #'   times on __work-free days__.
 #'   \cr \cr
 #'   Statement (`EN`): "If "Yes": Child(ren)/pet(s) ( ___ ) Hobbies ( ___ )

man-roxygen/section_a.R

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 #' @section Missing sections in standard and micro MCTQ versions:
 #'
 #' Although the standard and micro versions of the MCTQ asks for subjects to
-#' complete the workdays and work-free days sections, even when he/she do not
+#' complete the workdays and work-free days sections, even when they do not
 #' have a regular work schedule (`wd = 0`) or have a 7 day/week work schedule
 #' (`wd = 7`), some of them may still end skipping one of this parts of the
 #' questionnaire. In those cases, `sd_week()`, `sloss_week()`, `le_week()`,

vignettes/missing-sections.Rmd

@@ -23,13 +23,13 @@ It's a good idea to have the standard MCTQ questionnaire and the guidelines for
 
 ## Working around missing sections
 
-Although the standard and micro versions of the MCTQ asks for subjects to complete the workdays and work-free days sections, even when he/she do not have a regular work schedule (`wd = 0`) or have a 7 day/week work schedule (`wd = 7`), some of them may still end skipping one of this parts of the questionnaire. In those cases, `sd_week()`, `sloss_week()`, `le_week()`, `msf_sc()`, `sjl_rel()`, and `sjl()` will produce `NA` (Not Available) as output. That's because those computations combine workdays and work-free days variables.
+Although the standard and micro versions of the MCTQ asks for subjects to complete the workdays and work-free days sections, even when they do not have a regular work schedule (`wd = 0`) or have a 7 day/week work schedule (`wd = 7`), some of them may still end skipping one of this parts of the questionnaire. In those cases, `sd_week()`, `sloss_week()`, `le_week()`, `msf_sc()`, `sjl_rel()`, and `sjl()` will produce `NA` (Not Available) as output. That's because those computations combine workdays and work-free days variables.
 
-For those special standard and micro MCTQ cases, where one section is missing, a `NA` value is the correct output for the functions mentioned above when `wd` (number of workdays per week) are `wd > 0 & wd < 7`, but it may not be when `wd == 0` or `wd == 7`. While some researches may just invalid these latter cases, we propose a different approach.
+For those special standard and micro MCTQ cases, where one section is missing, a `NA` value is the correct output for the functions mentioned above when `wd` (number of workdays per week) are `wd > 0 & wd < 7`, but it may not be when `wd == 0` or `wd == 7`. While some researchers may just invalidate these latter cases, we propose a different approach.
 
 To illustrate this approach, consider the following.
 
-If a subject __do not have a regular work schedule__ (`wd == 0`), __only answered the work-free days section__, and __do not use an alarm clock on his/her free days__ (_i.e_, `alarm_f == FALSE`), it would be fair to assume that there's no sleep correction (`sc`) to be made, therefore, his/her chronotype (`msf_sc`) must be equal to his/her midsleep on work-free days (`msf`).
+If a subject __does not have a regular work schedule__ (`wd == 0`), __only answered the work-free days section__, and __does not use an alarm clock on their free days__ (_i.e_, `alarm_f == FALSE`), it would be fair to assume that there's no sleep correction (`sc`) to be made, therefore, their chronotype (`msf_sc`) must be equal to their midsleep on work-free days (`msf`).
 
 Following this same line of thought, we can also say that:
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Following this same line of thought, we can also say that:
 
 Note that the [chronotype computation](https://www.thewep.org/documentations/mctq/item/mctq-variables) follows a similar line of thought.
 
-The opposite scenario, _i.e._, when the subject __works 7 days per week__ (`wd == 7`) and __only answered the workdays section__, can also have different outputs. `sloss_week()`, `msf_sc()`, `sjl_rel()`, and `sjl()` should still produce a `NA` as output since there's no way to know the real behavior of the subject sleep-wake cycle. But, according to this reasoning, `sd_week` and `le_week` can have different outputs.
+The opposite scenario, _i.e._, when the subject __works 7 days per week__ (`wd == 7`) and __only answered the workdays section__, can also have different outputs. `sloss_week()`, `msf_sc()`, `sjl_rel()`, and `sjl()` should still produce a `NA` as output since there's no way to know the real behavior of the subject's sleep-wake cycle. But, according to this reasoning, `sd_week` and `le_week` can have different outputs.
 
 * `sd_week` (average weekly sleep duration) must be equal to `sd_w` (sleep duration on workdays) since the subject does not have work-free days.
 * `le_week` (average weekly light exposure) must be equal to `le_w` (light exposure on work-free days) since the subject does not have work-free days.