Some places may be unfit for your particular combination of items, and you don't want to find this out when it's too late!
Of all three-item combinations, the combination of items 3, 4 and 9 explained the most variance (80.1%) in AUDIT-10 score while AUDIT-C explained only 55.8% of variance.
The questionnaires consisted of a combination of items that may promote wellbeing, and items that may adversely affect wellbeing.
The questionnaire consisted of a combination of items that are assumed to promote health, and items that may be adversely associated with health.
The questionnaire consisted of a combination of items that are assumed to promote school wellbeing, and items that may be adversely associated with school wellbeing.
This short measure employs a combination of items from a standardized tool as well as demographic items (i.e., age and living arrangement) required to determine eligibility.
Briefly, the questionnaire consists of a combination of items that potentially may promote school wellbeing or health, and items that may be adversely associated with school wellbeing or health.
The internal reliability of this combination of items yielded a much higher Cronbach α value (.69) than the APSD items alone (.53).53
Retailers at the time obviously knew how much they were selling of a particular product, but the key point is that they did not know what combination of items consumers were typically buying.
The highest internal consistency of the three-item combinations was obtained with the AUDIT-C (0.70), followed by the novel combination of items 3, 4, and 9 (0.48) (Table 2).
The inventory consists of a combination of items such as "I trust scientists can find solutions to our major technological problems" and reversed phrase items such as "We cannot trust scientists because they are biased in their perspectives".
