Each item is evaluated using the criteria above, and one item is chosen from each student that best fits the criteria.
Each item is evaluated using a four-point Likert-type scale where 0 indicates that the person is autonomous while -3 denotes dependency.
All survey items were evaluated using descriptive statistics.
These items were evaluated using a 7-point Likert scale, where higher values signify a greater degree of collaboration and lower values signify a lower degree.
Ecometrics (reliability and validity) for scales created using NOC items were evaluated using processes developed by Raudenbush and Sampson (Raudenbush 2003; Raudenbush and Sampson 1999; Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Mentz G, House JS, Miranda P, Gravlee CC, et al., unpublished data).
The items were evaluated using the following tests: 30-second chair stand (repetitions), arm curl (repetitions), chair sit-and-reach (centimeters), back scratch (centimeters), 8-ft up-and-go (seconds), and 6-minute walk (meters), always in this order.
The internal consistency of the EPBD items was evaluated using Cronbach's[ 20] coefficient alpha and item-level data from each patient's initial and final assessment.
Because PROMIS item banks were evaluated using item response theory (IRT) [17], scores from any subset of bank items (e.g., custom short form, CAT) produce standardized scores on the same scale, regardless of which items from the bank are included in the measure.
Item-level analyses were evaluated using the "worst" day between (and inclusive of) Visit 1 and Visit 2, defined as the day with the worst rating on the patient global rating of disease severity.
