Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(59)
The highest percentages of missing responses were found for items of question 11 (coping attitudes), and for items of question 7 (influencing factors), regardless of the investigational or control group.
There is no such correlation for the other items of Question 7 (sadness, helplessness, disappointment, shock, and lack of comprehension).
The frequency of positive responses to the various symptom items of question 1 ranged from 27% (more social) to 74% (racing thoughts).
The last three items of question 5 were derived from high loading items of the generic social desirability scale developed by Merrill et al [ 41], which is based on an abbreviated version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale [ 42].
Feedback and comments provided by participants related to clarity of instructions, repetition of some items, irrelevancy of items, length of questions, similarity of items and sensitivity of questions such as income.
Subgroup analyses were conducted with Internet connectivity, level of anonymity, individual or group test setting, possibility of skipping items, possibility of backtracking previous items, inclusion of questions of sensitive nature, and social desirability scale type as moderators.
The immediate post-test (27 items) and delayed post-test (24 items) consist of questions on recognizing the word in a multiple choice question, recalling the translation of the word, and guessing which word fits in different contexts.
Items consisted of questions regarding: 1) knowledge of hypertension treatment guidelines; 2) barriers to hypertension control (physician vs. patient); and 3) self-estimation of physician treatment of hypertension.
One possible explanation is that the basic sciences and pathophysiology course students did not complete three items of DREEM questions related to clinical contact.
The questionnaire will contain demographic questions and the initial item pool of questions on HIV/AIDS-related stigma.
Inter-item correlations of questions 3 and 4 were moderate both for the overall sample (0.71) and those reporting pain (0.70).
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