Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(6)
Training credibility and participants' expectancy for improvement will be measured with the credibility and expectation questionnaire (CEQ).
Expectancy will be measured by the Numerical Scale of Expectancy for Improvement.
For example, expectancy for improvement is said to be related to outcome [ 36].
The Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire [CEQ - [ 48]]) is used to assess therapy credibility and client expectancy for improvement, as potential confounds for outcome.
This is a method of assessing a patient's expectation of improvement after treatment on a scale ranging from zero to 10, where zero represents "no expectancy for improvement" and 10 represents "expectancy for the greatest possible improvement".
Neutrally-angled orthoses have also been associated with improved pain and function in patients with knee OA over 12 months in a clinical trial, although placebo response was not ruled out since they were the control group with some expectancy for improvement [ 10].
Similar(54)
Previous research on patients' expectancies for improvement in clinical trials typically has been conducted after patients have already agreed to participate in a study.
Patients' expectations for improvement were assessed with a 2-item questionnaire based the work of Borkovec and Nau (1972) and the expectancy subscale of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire (Devilly and Borkovec 2000).
This factor could possibly have an impact on the cost-effectiveness results since the study design did not allow control for attention and expectancy of improvement.
Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ)[ 29] is a scale for measuring treatment credibility and expectancy of improvement.
Our analysis assumes that IORT and EBRT are expected to be equivalent in terms of life expectancy; an improvement in expected mortality for either treatment will shift the results to favor that strategy.
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