Different approaches were also used to capture positive and negative outcomes, suggesting that evaluators need to decide at what level they are evaluating and how to tie effects back to the project's contribution.
Evaluators conducted the evaluation of references independently.
The manual evaluators categorized the false negatives into their corresponding PHI categories.
29 If this model is followed, process data may provide prospective insights into why evaluators might subsequently expect to see positive or negative overall effects and generate hypotheses about how variability in outcomes may emerge.
The evaluators used mixed method approach for the evaluation.
The responses regarding the outcomes of decisions made in real-life situations that resembled the decision scenarios were rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = Negative, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Positive) by both raters, averaged between evaluators, and averaged across the six scenarios.
A diverse sample were selected by the evaluators to explore the range of perspectives and needs, and to seek positive and negative perceptions.
Mets evaluators had other catchers to consider.
But who will be our evaluators?
Negative, negative, negative.
