A multi-dimensional face-to-face assessment was performed with each subject using a multiple section questionnaire as described previously.
The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed using a measurement tool for Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews (AMSTAR) [ 20] which has been used by others to assess systematic review quality [ 21].
Using a multiple-risk-factor assessment equation [ 14], with complete data available for 79% of the study population, global risk-assessment scoring was calculated, and the age-stratified relative risk for coronary heart disease was estimated.
This study performed a wildfire susceptibility assessment using multiple methods, including logistic regression, probit regression, an artificial neural network, and a random forest (RF) algorithm.
At the end of the modules the participant will complete an assessment using multiple choice questions that includes the content of the course.
This FOM proved to be equivalent to a rigorous noise assessment using multiple statistically independent replicates while avoiding the correlation between voxels that results from iterative reconstruction [28].
Accordingly, assessment using data from multiple informants (e.g., children themselves; their parents, teachers, and clinicians) is highly recommended to improve decision making on diagnostic and intervention issues [ 2].
After the explicit assessment using the multiple-choice format, the participants were freely interviewed for 5 min about why they thought most people would perceive the protagonist's behaviour in a certain way (e.g. 'Why do you think this behaviour is fairly normal/rather strange/very eccentric/shocking?').
Assessments were made using a robust Multiple Paired Sample (MPS) approach, which is designed to maximize the accuracy of ΔR determinations.
It may reflect differing, yet equally important, realities [ 54] and highlights the need for outcome assessments using multiple informants.
