The phrase "average importance for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the significance or relevance of something in a general or typical context.
Example: "In this study, we found that the average importance for environmental factors was higher than expected."
Alternatives: "moderate significance for" or "typical relevance for".
Analogically, no significant differences in the self-assessments concerning the average importance of low risk for investments in general (cp. Table 8) were obtained between SR, INT and CONV investors.
For instance, the three items on indicator 1.1 (bodily care) had an average importance of 2.97, whereas the mean importance over all 15 indicators was 3.10.
The average mean rating was calculated for the importance of each symptom throughout all focus groups and combined into an overall average importance score for each symptom.
Table 3 describes the content of the six clusters: the overarching cluster theme, the individual statements (items) that are contained within each cluster, and the average importance ratings for each cluster and statement within the cluster.
Average importance ratings were computed for each cluster and labels were assigned to them based on the names proposed by the participants.
For all participants, the number of recognized prohibited physical restraint procedures and that of recognized harmful effects were significantly higher, and the average importance rating of reasons for requiring physical restraints was significantly lower among participants who had attended classes than those who had not (all p < .001; Table 5).
It also presents the average importance rating (on a 1 5 scale) for each of the ideas and the average importance rating of the statements within each cluster.
For each item, an average importance and face validity score was calculated from the expert panel ratings.
For each simulation, we obtained the average importance ranks of the three discriminating variables based on the MDM variable importance scores, the proportion of subjects correctly classified, and the AUC.
In that study, the average importance and performance scores were computed using the Likert scales, resulting in a range varying from 0 to 10 for the importance scores and a range of 0 to 1 for the performance scores.
