Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The mean group score was determined for each tissue and compared between groups.
For exam 2, the mean group score (74.5 ± 1.63%) was more than 10% higher than the mean individual score for students in group A (61.9 ± 1.89%).
We found a similar trend for exam 3, for which the mean group score (84.1 ± 1.13%) was more than 15% higher than the mean individual exam score for students in group B (63.7 ± 1.64%).
There was also strong evidence of improvement in the 12 caseload midwives' views on their client interaction over two years with the mean group score increasing from −0.02 (sd 1.16, range −1.16 to 1.6) to 1.49 (sd 0.27, range 0.8 to 1.8), with a mean difference of 1.50 (p = 0.003, 95% CI −2.37, −63).
Overall, when the scores of these 11 caseload midwives were combined, there was weak evidence of a decrease in the personal burnout scores (mean group score at baseline 47.4 (sd 26.6, range 8.3 to 83.3) compared to two years 31.1 (sd 10.4, range 12.5 to 45.8), mean difference 16; (p = 0.07, 95% CI −1.8, 34.4).
There was an increase in the professional satisfaction scores over two years when examining mean group score for these 12 midwives; 0.38 (sd 0.87, range −0.67 to 1.67) compared to 1.18 (sd 0.44, range 0.33 to 2), giving a positive mean difference between surveys of 0.81 (p = 0.02, 95% CI −1.45, −0.17).
Similar(54)
For exams 2 and 3, mean group scores were significantly higher than mean individual scores (p < 0.001).
Our group-level data suggests that mean group scores on the online and paper versions of the RMDQ are equivalent.
Mean group scores were compared using the paired samples t-test test within the patient group, and independent samples t-test between patients and population controls.
These t-tests considered if the mean group scores were above chance (zero), i.e. if the group showed a preference for novelty.
For all scales and summary measures mean group scores below 47 can be interpreted as being below the average range for the general population.
Related(20)
mean population score
median group score
mean group performance
mean cluster score
mean group difference
mean group profit
mean group age
mean group pH
mean group connectivity
mean group cost
mean group fitness
mean index score
mean group decrease
mean change score
mean group size
mean group sex
mean group activation
mean group regression
mean opinion score
mean group error
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