Exact(3)
Answers to the second question were considered correct if children reported the intention typically related to the use of the object (e.g. "to brush" for a brush, "to phone" for a telephone) in response to "use" pictures, or answered "placing" in response to "place" pictures.
Use of fluoride was defined as positive if children reported using fluoride agents, such as toothpaste, gel and mouthwash.
If children reported an impact on any performance, the frequency of the impact and the severity of its effect on their daily life were scored.
Similar(57)
This rationale was supported by our results, as mothers were less likely to report a greater number of events relative to their children (i.e., over-report) if their children reported more events overall.
This study examined which information is lost if child reports are excluded from screening for anxiety.
There was some evidence that reporting that friends also walk with their dog was seven times more likely if the child was non-white, ten times more likely if the child reported owning a Pit Bull type dog, but was a fifth less likely if the child owned more than one dog.
Parents were classified as smoking if the child reported that they 'smoke every day' or 'smokes sometimes'.
If the child reported having had a recent snack, the session was either rescheduled or briefly delayed, depending on the timing of the snack.
The psychologist coded 'yes' only if the child reported feeling scared, helpless, in despair or confused during or immediately after the event.
From the interview, "BP" was recorded if the child reported pain in any of the spinal areas on the day of examination, within the past week, or within the past month.
If the child had problems showing the area, the interviewer put one hand subsequently on the neck, thoracic and lumbar area while asking: "Was it in this area?" If the child reported back pain, the following questions were asked: "Did you because of back pain a) stop participation in physical activity such as sports or play?
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