This theory predicts that complaints handling will be satisfactorily to patients if the three dimensions of the process are evaluated as being fair: fair procedures, fair communication and fair outcome.
The second observation is that the predictive performance of individual texture and kinetic parameters did not exceed the level fair, except for parameters homogeneity and inverse difference moment whose performance level is evaluated as good.
Parameters of angiogenesis were evaluated as above.
One option is that the same offers were perceived or evaluated as more fair when they were preceded by words that described positive characteristics of the partner, compared to negative descriptions.
Almost 78%% of the participating children evaluated their oral health as excellent or very good, while only 5%% evaluated it as fair or poor.
AUC values, a measure of the overall predictive validity of the test, were evaluated as follows: AUC=0.50, random prediction; AUC=0.60 0.70, poor validity; AUC=0.70 0.80, fair validity; AUC=0.80 0.90, good validity; and AUC >0.90, excellent validity (34).
Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated as excellent when the total score was 12 points, good when 9 11, fair when 5 8, and poor when 0 4.
The cosmetic outcome was evaluated as excellent when the total score was 12 points, good when 9 11, fair when 5 8, and poor when 0 4 [9].
Although the Ontario staged triage protocol has not been evaluated as a predictor of health-care resource usage, our study suggests that SOFA's utility in this respect was fair for ICU admission (AUC 0.77) and good for MV AUCC 0.87).
Workload was evaluated as heavy in 53% of cases (too heavy in 8%) and moderate in 39%; personal-life was rated as good in 27% of cases, fair in 44% and poor in 24%.
