Sentence examples for multiple informants were from inspiring English sources
In constructing relative age lists, multiple informants were used for each five year age grouping of individuals and inconsistencies were investigated and resolved.
The relationships that were corroborated by multiple informants were kept and recorded as findings.
In addition, multiple informants were involved to assess these variables from different perspectives and in different milieus.
As can be seen, multiple informants were engaged, such as group workers, teachers, case managers and mothers as well as fathers.
When multiple informants were used (e.g., rates of anxiety were reported separately for the child, parent, and/or teacher), a weighted arithmetic average (based on the number of each informant) of these rates was entered into the meta-analyses.
The modest interrater agreement suggests that not only may diagnoses be most accurate when information from multiple informants is considered a common truism in clinical assessment [ 47] but that the nature of the anxiety construct may change depending on which informant(s) the assessment is based.
Multiple imputations, immediate replication, models of causal inference, repeated measures and multiple informants are increasingly standard practice.
Multiple informants are considered to be important when screening children for psychiatric symptoms, as several studies have revealed only low to moderate agreement between raters [ 34- 36].
Ultimately, it is likely that a combination of questionnaire and interview data, observed behavior/arousal, and multiple informants are required to arrive at a best-guess diagnosis of anxiety disorder in young people with ASD.
If multiple SDQ informants were available, their scores were combined to produce the prediction; otherwise single SDQ scores, from either parent or teacher, were used.
Triangulation of views from multiple informants has been considered to be essential for coercion studies [ 1, 18] Considering the C-AES questionnaire, all participants agreed on the scope of coverage on admission experience, appropriateness of use of language and length of the questionnaire, although item 2 and 12 appeared redundant.
