Sentence examples for conclusion validity from inspiring English sources

The questionnaire (Table 2) was constructed especially for this case and proved to be both reliable (internal consistency) and valid (concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and statistical conclusion validity; data not shown in detail; see also statistical analysis section) for the Greek population used.

In conclusion, validity results based on scores measured in low-stakes contexts cannot simply be generalized to high-stakes contexts.

Shadish et al. (2002) have listed nine threats to statistical conclusion validity, that are examined in this article, and the strategies for overcoming these threats are identified for researchers designing effective research investigations.

Regarding statistical conclusion validity of quantitative articles, articles having endogeneity threats received significantly fewer citations than did those using a more robust design or an estimation procedure that ensured correct causal estimation.

This design is distinguished from quasiexperiments in that the plausible threats to internal validity, regression and maturation, as well as the threats to statistical conclusion validity (Cook and Campbell 1979) must be controlled by a statistical model.

The classic definition of statistical conclusion validity that is an essential design component for research investigations is given by Cook and Campbell (1979: 37) as the truthfulness of "conclusions about covariation" between treatment and outcome – that is, the degree of accuracy with which researchers can conclude that two variables are related or that a treatment is effective.

Finally, the threats to the experiment conclusions' validity are mainly related to the characteristics of the algorithms that were investigated.

That conclusion's validity rests on two indicators of biotin status that depend on renal function.

Conclusion: the validity of the chest radiograph and observers consistency in the detection of nodular lung cancer varies widely.

Conclusion: The validity and reliability of CDST is adequate for use as a screening tool to identify mild cognitive impairment and early dementia in Korean primary care.

However, as Robert Schaffer and Joseph Robinson of IPWatchdog explain, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may, as a matter of law, reach a different conclusion on validity, even if the records were identical because PTAB uses a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, 35 U.S.C. § 316 e), whereas federal courts use a "clear and convincing" standard.