Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 21;14(6):e0218796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218796

Table 7. Comparison of different methods.

Reference Object of study Type of method used Measure of goodness
Current study 1 cohort of 54 degrees in on-campus university 5 ML classification methods See Tables 46
[10] Several cohorts of 27 degrees in on-campus university Regression Explained variance: varying from 73.3% to 83.2%, depending on the area
[11] 1 cohort of 54 degrees in on-campus university MANOVA Explained variance: 30%
[17] 2 cohorts of 1 degree in on-campus university Regression Accuracy: 88.7%
[20] 2 online courses Artificial Neural Networks 83.6% and 87.3% for dropout and non-dropout classes, respectively
[22] 5 cohorts of one on-campus university 4 ML classification methods F not provided. Accuracy varying from 86.12% to 87.23%, depending on methods
[23] 1 cohort of 3 degrees in on-campus university 4 ML classification methods Not numerically but graphically provided. F: varying over 40% and below 80% methods
[24] 1 online course 5 ML classification methods F not provided. Accuracy varying from 78.17% to 83.89%, depending on methods
[25] 4 online courses 4 ML classification methods F not provided. Accuracy: 50%-94%. Recall: 20%-90%. Precision: 10.5%-81-8%. Depending on methods
[26] 3 cohorts of online university 3 ML classification methods F varying from 65.65% to 71.91%, depending on methods
[27] 1 online course 4 ML classification methods F not provided. Recall: 73.9% - 87%, depending on methods