Sentence examples for mean perception score from inspiring English sources

The mean expectation score was 15.1 while the mean perception score was 12.2.

Mean expectation score for empathy was 3.06 (SE = 0.120), while the mean perception score was 2.51 (SE =0.140), therefore the gap mean score for assurance was -0.55.

Expectation score for reliability was 3.07 (SE = 0.10) while the mean perception score was 2.57 (SE = 0.11), therefore the gap mean score for assurance was -0.49.

Mean expectation score for responsiveness was 2.95 (SE = 0.195) while the mean perception score was 2.23 (SE = 0.203), therefore the gap mean score for assurance was -0.72.

The mean expectation score for tangibles was 3.00 (SE = 0.143), while the mean perception score was 2.48 (SE = 0.151), therefore the gap mean score for tangibles was -0.52.

Expectation score for assurance was 3.02 and standard error (SE) 0.143, while the mean perception score was 2.55 and SE 0.151, therefore the gap mean score for assurance was -0.47.

The mean perception scores on the general quality of nursing care services were 9.04 (SD = 1.5) among women leaving ANC clinics, 9.05 (SD = 1.2) among women leaving the labour and delivery, and 8.77 (SD = 1.8) among women leaving PNC clinics.

Participants' perceptions of the quality of ANC, delivery and PNC care: The mean perception scores on interpersonal relations were 9.93 (SD = 1.7) among women leaving ANC clinics, 9.04 (SD = 1.8) among women leaving the labour and delivery service and 8.94 (SD = 1.8) among women leaving PNC clinics.

The mean perception scores in relation to conditions of the examination rooms were 9.35 (SD = 1.4) among women leaving ANC clinics, 9.34 (SD = 1.5) among women leaving the labour and delivery service, and 9.15 (SD = 1.5) among women leaving PNC clinics.

Based on the crude overall mean risk perception score throughout all the items in the questionnaire before the factor analysis and also based on previous studies [ 18], a cut-off level of 3.5 points was determined for the mean dimension scores and the students were grouped into two categories "high risk perception" and "low risk perception" according to this cut-off.

Inspection of the adjusted mean threat perception scores indicated that girls clearly displayed higher threat perception scores than did boys, means being 139.19 (SE = 6.95) and 113.07 (SE = 7.18), respectively.