Exact(2)
In this study the co-variation between class size and achievement is addressed by testing mean differences between the different treatment conditions.
Concurrent and convergent criterion validity was evaluated by testing mean differences in affect across parent feeding styles using ANOVA.
Similar(58)
Two-Way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by multiple comparison tests was used for testing mean differences between groups at the different time points at significance levels (P ≤ 0.05).
The discrepancy between recalled and registered BW and GA was assessed by Student's t test (mean difference [MD]; SD).
We first examined the metabolite data by testing for differences in the means of the measurements for dehydration and rehydration using a Wilcoxon test.
We verified that comparison of means and variances by class (e.g., F1-2x) wappropriateate by testing for significant differences in the means within each reciprocal cross (e.g., F1G-2x, F1N-2x) using a t-test.
The between-group differences were assessed by testing the difference in the least squares mean change from baseline at week 12 versus placebo, and Dunnett procedure was used to adjust for the multiple treatment comparisons.
Differences in proportions between groups were examined with chi-squared tests and mean differences by Student's t-test.
For the risk assessment, significant differences in proportions were determined by using Fisher's exact tests, and mean differences were assessed by using the Student-t tests.
The purpose of this study was to expand on previous literature regarding the intrasubject variability of the Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) by incorporating a larger sample of participants and by examining the test-retest mean differences and intrasubject variability not only in the DSI but also within its component measures.
Mean differences, ICCs and corresponding 95% CIs for height, weight and BMI were tabulated separately for the informed and uninformed groups and compared between groups using student's t-test for mean differences and by comparing 95% CIs for ICCs [ 17, 18].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com