Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(4)
The Item-Objective Congruence Index (IOC) was 0.83.
The item-objective congruence index was computed from the specialists' ratings [ 29].
All items reached the highest score for the congruence index in the GAD objective domain, with scores ranging from 0.50 (item 7) and the maximum possible value of 1 (item 5).
MASTs are used, among other things, as a metric for comparing phylogenetic trees [ 2- 4], computing their congruence index [ 5, 6], to identify horizontal gene transfer events [ 7], for resolving ambiguity in terraces in phylogenetic tree space [ 8], and as a consensus approach [ 9].
Similar(56)
MASTs are also used, among other things, as a metric for comparing phylogenetic trees, computing congruence indices and to identify horizontal gene transfer events.
Congruence indices were calculated by the number of useable support measures for a specific node divided by the number of cases in which there was high support.
First, the questionnaire design can be validated by calculating the Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) index as 0.96, which was acceptable.
All items of the questionnaire had an Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) index score higher than 0.5 [ 25], which confirmed the content validity of the questionnaire.
The authors found that pain and function in WOMAC and McCarroll scores were significantly improved, but the Insall-Salvati index and congruence angle decreased compared with the preoperative index.
The authors determined level of congruence by computing an index of congruence based on patients' and therapists' answers to a 24-item questionnaire covering issues related to back pain, health status and current treatment [ 12].
It was found that the instrument had content validity (indices of item objective congruence range from 0.714 to 1.000), suitable discrimination indices (item-total correlations range from 0.756 to 0.894) and high internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach's α coefficients range from 0.818 to 0.904).
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