Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(59)
The coding scheme demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs [1,2] = 0.81 0.91) across 168 video recordings.
The largest ICCs (0.05 0.12) and design effects (4.4 9.4) were found for height and diastolic blood pressure.
Within-day ICCs (0.48 0.95) were consistently superior to between-day values (0.19 0.72).
Scales had ICCs >0.9.
All dimensions were reproducible (ICCs 0.75 to 0.81).
ICCs [ 1, 3] for all 3D measures of wrists and MCPs were greater than 0.99 (wrist volume ICC = 0.992, wrist SDI ICC = 0.996, MCP volume ICC = 0.995, and MCP SDI ICC = 0.999).
This method involves computing standardized scores (i.e. z-scores) using the following formula (Newson [2002]): (c) z = ( icc 1 − icc 2 ) ( se 1 2 + se 2 2 ) . z = ( icc 1 − icc 2 ) ( se 1 2 + se 2 2 ).
All four measures were acceptable, suggesting adequate levels of agreement and reliability (r wg = .85; α = .83; ICC 1 = .67; ICC 2 = .80).80
The overall SIPA exhibited excellent inter-rater (ICC = 0.92) and intra-rater (ICCs = 0.95 - 0.99) reliability.
40P was the most reproducible algorithm (median ICC 0.9; interquartile range [IQR] 0.85 0.92) compared with FLAB (median ICC 0.83; IQR 0.77 0.86) and FH (median ICC 0.77; IQR 0.7 0.85).
Results: The reliability of the PPA-LCI (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] =.88) was slightly higher than the Houghton Scale (ICC =.85) and the PEQ mobility subscale (ICC =.77).
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