The phrase "assumed reliability" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the reliability of something that is taken for granted or accepted without proof.
Example: "The study was based on the assumed reliability of the data collected from previous research."
Alternatives: "presumed reliability" or "expected reliability".
A pseudo-phenotype corresponding to each animal's genetic evaluation was generated, consisting of the animal's genetic value plus a residual with variance set to obtain the assumed reliability for each group of animals.
This feature of the proposed design, in turn, results in same reliability for each tag value at various assumed reliability of switching elements despite having the similar topology and hardware cost as that of the earlier 4DGINs.
For a categorization into five proficiency levels, the authors suggest the following percentages of accurate classifications depending on the assumed reliability of the test (in parentheses):.70 (.50),.50 (.50),.50 (.50).50
The middle and right-side graphs show the weighted least squares regression of cardiovascular mortality relative risk assuming reliability coefficient of 1.0 and 0.7.
Assuming reliability is the degree to which people can be distinguished from each other, the KINDL's ICCs should be 0.6 or higher for healthy group comparisons.
This in turn decreases the STE and increases the STEP. Figure 5 shows the graphs of the scatterplot weighted by trial size and the by-trial weighted least squares regression of stroke relative risk and systolic blood pressure difference assuming reliability coefficient of 0.9 and 0.7. Figure 6 shows the results for diastolic blood pressure for these same reliability coefficients.
From the results, it can be inferred that the codes need further factors calibration, with the aims of guaranteeing both territorially uniform reliability levels, and the traditionally assumed target reliability levels, e.g. those stated in the Eurocodes.
* correlation is significant at 0.05 level Following the methods of a previous work [ 21], we estimated the minimum number of evaluations per physician needed to achieve specified reliability coefficients: assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.60, ratings from 4 peers, 4 co-workers and 9 patients would be required for reliable measurement.
As a result, the correlation between c and ϕ is often ignored or simply assumed during reliability studies, which may lead to bias estimation of failure probability.
Using such a strategy, Hunter and Hunter (1984) assumed a reliability of 0.6 for their corrections, which some investigators have considered to be too low (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989).
It was assumed that reliability was lower (1) in women than in men and (2) for cranking force-velocity tests than for cycling tests.
