Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
Responses to this item were considered against placement and simulation experience.
Ratings of "much" and "very much" for each item were considered positive, as done in other similar investigations.
Respondents who answered "yes" to any item were considered to have experienced genetic discrimination and were counted once.
Missing data on each item were considered as non-response and these were not included in the chi-square calculations.
Subjects scoring -0.5 (or less) for each item were considered as being impaired with regard to the particular sense.
For purposes of this analysis, those who answered 'yes' to the pain and function items, and 'some or none good' to the appearance item were considered to have severe impaired oral health because of oral health-related quality of life factors.
Similar(52)
An item is considered acceptable if its discrimination index is greater than or equal to 0.2 (Brown 1983).
For simplicity, three final demand items (household consumption, government consumption, and capital formation including change of inventory) and one value-added item are considered in the format.
This item was considered as potentially confronting to women.
This item was considered relevant to T2D by nine participants.
If alpha increased significantly when the item was omitted, the item was considered for discarding.
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