Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(2)
There was fair reliability between the less experienced observer and the more experienced observers.
Similarly, we found only fair reliability between the observers, with ICC = 0.31 for affected hips and ICC = 0.23 for unaffected hips (Table 2).
Similar(58)
The ICC interpretation that was used considered the reliability of the values as follows: slight reliability for values between 0 and 0.2, fair reliability for values from 0.21 to 0.4, moderate reliability for values between 0.41 and 0.6, substantial reliability for values from 0.61 to 0.8, and almost perfect reliability for values higher than 0.81.
This item was reported with fair reliability (κ=0.35).
Measurement of femoral anteversion resulted in fair reliability.
Nutrition subscale had fair reliability for the English version.
Nine out of 11 items had good or moderate reliability, and two items achieved fair reliability.
By and large, ICC inter-rater reliability values showed only slight to fair reliability for the NET (Table 3).
The one exception to this was for hopping, which demonstrated only fair reliability.
Item 1, regarding the representativeness of subjects, was reported with fair reliability (κ =0.27).
However, only hopping demonstrated a low percent agreement and fair reliability.
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