Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
For the data forms that were returned, errors of omission were much more common with the paper forms (3.5% missing items compared with 0.4% with computerized collection).
Similar(59)
KP and DHS respondents with missing items were compared to those without missing items in terms of gender, age, education, and HbA1c level.
Resulting bias is unlikely since the baseline characteristics of responders and non-responders only differed slightly and the percentage of missing items was very small compared to other studies in similar settings [ 21, 22] still allowing for a certain generalisability.
The results revealed a higher mean age among individuals with missing items on the SOC-3 compared to the remainder of the sample [ M = 62.5 years (SD = 18.5) vs. M = 52.8 years (SD = 17.2), t = 8.4, p < .001].001]
Research Question 1 (face validity and practicality) was addressed by comparing the proportion of missing items from the CHU9D with the SDQ.
We compared response rates, floor and ceiling effects, missing items, and the need for manual validation of forms.
Missing items were imputed whenever possible according to Ware et al. We compared pre-operative PCS and MCS between both preference groups.
dchi test for significance comparing responses from the initial and follow-up surveys, missing items were excluded.
Firearms were not the most expensive category of missing items.
The number of missing items was 2%.
Participants noted some potentially missing items from the questionnaire.
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