Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(5)
In total, 349 returned questionnaires with complete answers were valid for analysis (response rate: 69.9 %).
Of the 549 questionnaires distributed, 311 valid responses were collected for analysis (response rate, 56.7%).
For analysis response categories were combined to yield either "existence of the problems" or "lack of the disorder".
A total of 1239 individuals were recruited into the study, but 244 withdrew or failed to answer essential questions, leaving 993 individuals for analysis (response rate 80.1%).
From the 231 OHTs who composed the initial sample, 27 were lost for analysis (response rate = 88.3%) due to the following reasons: no longer working for the FHS (n = 12); refusal to participate in the study (n = 4); and impossibility to establish contact (n = 11).
Similar(55)
For analysis, responses were dichotomized as "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" versus "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree".
For analysis, responses were recoded into no (never) and yes (rarely, sometimes, often).
For analysis, responses were collapsed into three categories (better off, the same, and worse off).
For analysis, responses were dichotomised (ie, 'yes' vs 'no'stronglygly agree'/'agree' vs 'neither agree nor disagree'/'disagree'/'strongly disagree').
For analysis, responses had to be pooled across all stimuli in order to ensure a sufficient sample size.
For analysis, responses were assigned a score reflecting the average number of servings per day indicated by each response option (0.07, 0.14, 0.36, 0.71, 1, 2 or 3.5).
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