Suggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Despite both low and moderate correlations being evident between individual dimensions of the three instruments, correlations between the overall utilities and summary scores were all moderate reflecting a level of correlation deemed adequate by previous studies for the purposes of determining that such instruments are interchangeable [ 47, 58, 60– 60].
Similar(59)
Convergent and discriminant validity were tested by examining the correlations of items with the PCS and MCS summary scores, and then examining inter-instrument correlations between the SF-8 items and PCS and MCS summary scores with the HTQ and HSCL-25 which were used to measure PTSD and depression.
Inter-instrument correlation between the combined consequence and control negative dimension and the control negative dimension of the APQ-S.
Inter-instrument correlation between the combined consequence and control negative dimension and the consequence negative dimension of the APQ-S.
For three instruments the correlations between items and the total scale ranged between 0.24 and 0.71, 0.37 and 0.80, and 0.56 and 0.64.
To assess the convergent-divergent validity, we determined the inter-correlations among the four instruments and the correlations between the instruments and mental health, pain and function SRS-22 scales (Additional file 2).
As we use several observational instruments this enables to determine correlations between the instruments.
Furthermore, in line with the theoretical assumptions of the measurement instrument non-zero correlations between the four factors were allowed.
In the current context the instruments showed high completion rates, good test-retest reliability and expected correlations between instruments (data not shown).
Table 3 also presents the results of the inter-instrument correlation for construct validity between the SF-8 items and PCS and MCS summary scores with PTSD (HTQ) and depression (HSCL-25).
Correlations between instruments measuring the same construct reflect their concurrent validity.
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