Sentence examples for mean differences across from inspiring English sources

There is caution warranted, however, when comparing mean differences across different assessment contexts.

In summary, significant differences between lesion 1D, 2D and VOL measurements were found using different slice intervals, although the mean differences across the different slice intervals were generally low.

For HYP, there were mean and variance differences between boys and girls at all ages, mean differences across zygosity and between children sharing a classroom and children in different classrooms at age 7 and variance differences between children sharing a classroom and children in different classrooms at age 12.

Latent mean differences across groups were detected for expectancies concerning emotional fluidity, and the pattern of differences largely mirrored known differences in alcohol consumption patterns.

Overall, results from a series of confirmatory factor analyses of the PSI-VS-ID provided support for its: (i) factorial validity and reliability; (ii) factorial invariance across gender and weight status; (iii) partial (strict or strong) factorial invariance across age, ID level and samples; and (iv) latent mean differences across gender, weight status and ID level groups.

Since there was support for metric invariance and the majority of the item intercepts were invariant across countries, we are confident that any estimated latent mean differences across the countries are reliably (i.e., they are based on many cross-culturally comparable items) (Chen 2008; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998).

The mean difference across the coefficients was about 15%.

This component of inequality thus indicates the mean difference across areas.

We further examined the extent of involvement in entrepreneurship using descriptive statistics and test of mean difference across gender with the use of the T test.

Heterogeneity of the mean difference across studies was checked using the Q-statistic and the degree of heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 statistic.

Sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% and 73.5%, respectively, at a cutoff of 2. However, the mean difference across phases for children with baseline scores >3 was much lower than for children with scores <3, P = .0001.0001