Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(13)
Three factors were, however, composed of fewer than three items: the second factor had two items (14 and 32), the fourth factor also had two items (7 and 8), and the fifth factor had just one item (24).
The normalization function assigns the values {1,2,2,4} because the first item matches the first rule of the surjection, the second and fourth items the second rule, and the third item the third rule of the g function.
The first factor included symptoms and emotional items, the second included strength items and the third included daily activities.
Consequently, the 14 frequency of bother items (the second part of questions 18 to 31) were deleted.
Two stages of questionnaires asked participants to rate the relative importance of suggested checklist items; the second questionnaire was refined based on feedback from the previous one.
This table contains three columns: the first column contains concepts representing consumed data items; the second column contains concepts present in the reference ontology; and, the third column contains concepts representing produced data items.
Similar(47)
For the structure items the third distractors were more successful than the fourth distractor present only in the 5-option items, although for the reading items, the fourth distractors were rather more successful than the third.
For factors with more than two items, the first two items of highest loading factors were chosen consistently and were deemed significant items.
This validated index involves 12 items, the first eight items specifically designed for non-comparative studies and the remaining four items applied to comparative studies.
For the first factor of the FCQ composed of 5 items, the first item parcel was comprised by the following items: 1, 3, and 5.
Combine the first item with the second item, second item with the third item, etc. until the end of the list.
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