The phrase "group equivalence" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in mathematics, although it can be used in other contexts too. For example, "The team members felt a sense of group equivalence, as each person was respected and had a sense of belonging."
Random assignment to group (targeted to 1 1) utilized a randomization sequence, generated by a researcher not affiliated with this study, including random sequences in blocks of six participants to maintain group equivalence over time.
Strengths of this research include using randomized designs (62.9%), testing for baseline group equivalence (84.5%), and monitoring treatment, which rose significantly from being used in 48.1 64.4% of projects over time.
Further, first year performance grade point score (on a scale of 10) was used to confirm the group equivalence.
However, propensity score matching on a wide range of variables with a large sample size approximates group equivalence in the absence of random assignment (Stuart 2010), permitting a degree of causal inference.
Lack of adequate group equivalence through strong matched-pair designs has been a known concern (Maloffeva et al. 2007) with some recent studies responding to the call to employ robust matching methods (Hill et al. 2015; Moore et al. 2015).
Additionally, group equivalence was tested using several pretests (see Measures of Group Equivalence).
QM, however, consists of income groups, equivalence classes of people having the same income, and identity in QM is absolute.
Things such as income groups, job groups (equivalence classes of people with the same job), and surmen can all be counted using the equivalencies, without bringing surmen, job groups, and income groups into the picture.
This study was a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind (double-dummy), active-controlled, parallel-group, equivalence trial.
Differences in FGM levels between two sets of data were examined by t-test, after confirming between-group equivalence of variances.
Numerous theorists [ 23, 32, 33] have argued that between-group equivalence in the magnitude of factor loadings is necessary in order to conclude that the underlying constructs have the same meaning across groups.
