Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
The cut-off score for having externalizing or internalizing problems was a norm deviation score of 1 SD higher than the mean for the same age and sex on the CBCL scales for internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems.
The cut-off score for anxiety and low self-esteem was a norm deviation score of at least 1 SD higher (anxiety) or lower (self-esteem) than the means for the same age and sex on the trait anxiety and the global self-worth scale, respectively.
Similar(58)
T-tests examined whether norm deviation scores deviated from zero (the norm).
SDS, standard deviation score.
Body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) were expressed as absolute values and as standard deviation scores (SDS), from the median of the norm.
At the subdomain level, the largest deviations from norm scores were seen in Neuroticism facets Depression and Vulnerability, Agreeableness facets Trust and Straightforwardness, and Conscientiousness facets Competence, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving and Self-Discipline.
Third, to provide norm scores, the mean PedsQL_YA scale scores with standard deviations were calculated by gender, age and health status (construct validity).
The norm score (IQ score) of the test is 100 with a standard deviation (SD) of 15.
The SF-12v2 consists of 12 items aggregated in two summary components: a Physical Component Summary (PCS) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) which are standardized to produce a mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10 (norm-based scoring) [ 47].
The scores for each subscale are converted to norm based scores (based on 1998 US general population), with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
These scores will be converted in a norm-based score and compared with the norm values for the general population of the United States (1998), in which each scale was scored to have the same standardized average (50 points) and the same standard deviation (10 points) [ 32].
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