Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
A differential attitudes measure was calculated by subtracting the mastectomy direct attitudes score from the BCS direct attitudes score [ 35].a The higher the resulting score, the more positive were women's attitudes towards BCS.
To correct for the number of comparisons being made, Bonferroni corrections were applied to each group of comparisons (direct attitudes:.0125; behavioural beliefs:.005; outcome evaluations:.006).006
T-tests were used to examine whether there were significant differences at item level between women who chose BCS and those who chose mastectomy with respect to (a) items assessing direct attitudes; (b) behavioural beliefs; and (c) outcome evaluations.
The direct attitudes were re-categorised from a 1 7 Likert scale to a scale of low, medium and high attitudes on which 1 3 represented low attitude, 4 medium attitudes and 5 7 high attitude.
Similar(55)
The belief-based attitudes scales were then correlated with their direct attitude counterparts.
The belief-based mastectomy attitudes score was significantly positively correlated with its direct attitude counterpart (r =.373, p <.05).
There was a significant negative correlation between the BCS and mastectomy direct attitude scores (r = −.582, p <.001).
The median scores for behavioural intention, direct attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control can be seen in Table 1.
The belief-based BCS attitudes score was positively, albeit not significantly, correlated with its direct attitude counterpart (r =.248, p =.097).
The variables that influenced the behavioural intention were direct attitude, age and herd health programme; these variables were included in the final model (Table 4).
For the direct attitude items, women who opted for BCS believed more strongly that BCS would be beneficial (Ms = 2.47 vs. 0.30), t(10.47) = 3.88, p =.003, and right for them (Ms = 2.33 vs. -0.60), t(10.78) = 4.18, p =.002, by comparison with women who chose mastectomy.
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