Here is the email from the school reviewer:

Thank you for the revisions that you have completed to the dissertation. Your efforts are improving the dissertation and providing the needed information. However, I am suggesting that additional work is needed before I am able toapprove the dissertation. I have summarized my comments based on the chapters of the dissertation that require additional work. I also observed multiple grammar and word usage errors that require additional editing.

Chapter 1

You have expanded your level of detail and provided some specific reasons for the research. However, the information that you have added (in yellow highlights) to the chapter is not presented with citations showing where the information was obtained. Could you please add additional citations from peer reviewed journal articles?

Chapter 2

The learner has expanded the information provided. However, the information that was added (in yellow highlights) to the chapter is not presented with citations showing where the information was obtained. Please also continue to expand your analysis that synthesizes information, and conveys to the reader what is known and what is not known.

Chapter 3

During the last review I suggested that the sampling information should be expanded to include a detailed discussion and justification on how the number of records obtained was determined to be appropriate. That justification must also include the total number of records that were available for review and the number that were actually reviewed for the study. I was not able this locate this addition to the chapter.

Chapter 4

During the last review I had suggested that you discuss the statistical tests that were completed, and their direct relationship to each research question. I am not able to locate this information. Please expand your discussion of your research questions and how the selected statistical analysis addresses the question and the hypothesis. The research questions should be listed with the appropriate analysis discussing how the data addresses or answers the question and whether the null hypothesis was proved to be true. The general discussion of the results provided is good, but the specific discussion for each question is missing.