–They'll see and appreciate just how amazing an achievement Burj Khalifa is in 3-D by comparing their scale models of the Burj and the Empire State Building.
Known-group validity was assessed by comparing EAPIQ scale scores between patients grouped according to their self-rating of ocular allergy severity.
Known-group validity was assessed by comparing EAPIQ scale scores between patients grouped according to their self-rating of ocular allergy severity (no symptoms, very mild, mild, moderate, severe, very severe).
We then put our Sierra Nevada O3 deposition measurements in perspective by comparing our results with measured O3 deposition velocity for sites outside the Sierra Nevada and by comparing ecosystem scale fluxes of O3 to other trace gases.
Criterion-related validity of the scale can be assessed by comparing the scale with a standard measurement [ 18].
Criterion-related validity is typically assessed by comparing the scale in question to a "gold standard" measurement.
This fits well with the fact that it is less constrained overall, as can be seen by comparing the scale bars in Figs. 2A, B, and 2C.
Known-groups validity was confirmed, by comparing mean scale scores across groups known to differ, using sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as the differing criteria.
Construct validity was evaluated by comparing mean scale scores across ordinal categories of caries experience; correlational construct validity was assessed by comparing mean CPQ scores across children's global ratings of oral health and well-being.
Five indirect methods to evaluate validity were adopted: First, by comparing the scale scores with patients with poorer and better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG-the clinical variable assessed) [ 5] performance status using the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test [ 15].
Since the SPF-IL and SMAS are both based on the SPF theory we evaluated construct validity by comparing the SMAS scale scores with well-being measured by the SPF-IL scale.
