The Reproductive Health scale may not have reached an acceptable level because the items could in fact be measuring slightly different concepts.
Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between similar items in FACT-Hep and QLQ-HCC18.
This may have occurred because of the reverse scoring used in appetite and activity items in FACT-Hep which may have led to confusion.
The QLQ-HCC18 Japanese version scales had an acceptable correlation (coefficient value over 0.40) with similar items in FACT-Hep except for items of weight loss, appetite and activity.
Regarding your item in Fact & Comment about Bill Gates' efforts to reform U.S. schools ("Limited Risks = Limited Gains," July 24): Success in education does not depend on the amount of money you pour into an institution or on the size of the school, and it does not entirely rely upon the number of teachers available.
Carneades replies that even if no two things were exactly alike (consistent with his general line of argument, he does not take a stance on such questions), a very close similarity could appear to exist for all perceivers (Cicero, Acad. 2.83 5); that is, the impressions of two items, though in fact these items might differ from each other, could be indistinguishable.
On average, subjects recalled 20.4 details consistently, reminisced 8.4 details on the second test, and forgot 9.2 details from the first test to the second.2 Consistently recalled items were in fact significantly more accurate than forgotten items, which were in turn significantly more accurate than reminisced items; however, the accuracy of all the reported items was high.
An elaborate computational modelling of the visual saliency of the stimulus arrays showed that the food items were, in fact, visually less salient than the non-food items.
Indeed, the inability to perform reliable bivariate genetic analyses using this factor, coupled with the difficulty of interpreting its symptom constituents illustrates a weakness of the YBOCS-CL, i.e. that over the years items have been added to the scale without investigating whether the items are in fact OCD-related, carrying the risk of introducing phenotypic bias.
This did not mean a reduction in the production of any of these items and, in fact, the opposite occurred.
