Responses are coded agree (4), partially agree (3), partially disagree (2) and disagree (1).
The legends were fully agree, partially agree, neither agree nor disagree, partially disagree and fully disagree, associated with the numerical values 2, 1, 0, − 1, − 2, respectively.
For each statement, the respondent should choose one of the following options, according to his/her opinion about it: "totally disagree," "strongly disagree," "partially disagree," "neutral," "partially agree," "strongly agree," and "totally agree".
The respondents are advised to respond each item of the questionnaire in a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree, 2 = partially disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = no opinion, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = partially agree, and 7 = totally agree).
0 0 0 3 5 10 6 3 21 1 totally disagree, 2 strongly disagree, 3 partially disagree, 4 neutral, 5 partially agree, 6 strongly agree, 7 totally agree.
Table 12 Evaluation of extracted interests SCALE EXTRACTED INTERESTS Fully agree 0,47 Partially agree 0,22 I do not agree, nor disagree 0,10 Partially disagree 0,04 Fully disagree 0,18.
Participants rated three statements with the response options "agreed totally", "agreed partially", "disagreed partially" and "disagreed totally".
23% neutral and partially disagreed 11% and fully disagreed 13%, as shown in Fig. 20.
Researcher B totally disagreed 6%, partially disagreed 12% and remained neutral in 18% of topics of interests.
Regarding the general educational interests identified from the categorization of favorite pages, Researcher A indicated fully agree with 100% of interests, whereas Researcher B fully agreed with 50% interests and 50% partially disagreed with them.
This hypothesis implies that ABT301T is not an euploid strain with a karyotype that is a multiple of the haploid complement, a status which partially disagrees with our previous data (Solieri et al. 2008).
