Although it has been used in similar studies in Taiwan, China and Korea [ 6, 10, 13], few coincidences occurred between questions selected on these studies and the Chilean version.
This is reflected in the lack of a difference in critical thinking skills (L3+ essay questions) between study group participants and nonparticipants in fall (Table 3).
Overall, results differed considerably between studies due to variations in study designs, populations, survey questions and definitions of correct behaviour.
Furthermore, questions are raised regarding the parallel between students' tool-use pattern and study strategy use.
The only difference between the SAQ version of study 2 and study 1 were the materials (i.e., questions).
We calculated ICC between users (raters) over post-study survey questions (samples) and we report and interpret the values using the guidelines described by Koo et al. [71].
In general, it can be stated that the nanoparticle analysis method has to be chosen according to the requirements of the case in question and the comparative studies between different nanomaterials is difficult.
In this study, we searched for correlation between semi-quantitative answers to CAESAR questions (and not scores) and outcomes.
In this context, we considered essential to gather all the information available to give a global view of the current research in this domain, in order to highlight the need to reformulate the questions and approach to these questions, under similar conditions between studies, and using integrated approaches, from the molecular to the behavioural level.
