The goal was to recreate the same missing data percentage item by item as observed in original attained dataset.
Before calculating these percentages, items were recoded to exert no influence on dignity (score 1 on the 5-point scale) if they did not apply to a nursing home resident.
Table 1 Number of students, differences between unsupervised and supervised assessment items (percentage point), and unusual patterns (UP % of students) by academic area Unsupervised% − supervised% Academic area N Avg.
The scores were converted to percentages; item score per total number of items in the scale (Table 1).
These were conversion of fractions to percentages (item 3), and conversion of percentages to frequencies (item 11), both of which included decimal numbers.
Within sub-dimensions there are differences in answer scales, therefore the results in Table 1 are presented in actual frequencies and percentages item by item as well as mean, SD and median [ 13].
The same was not true for the percentage of items with DIF in the item bank.
The following criteria were employed for item selection: Percentage affirmation of item: Items that were affirmed by a very small or very large proportion of the sample were excluded.
Full model results available from authors Item non-response was examined by calculating the average percentage of items completed, and the percentage of respondents who completed all relevant questions, i.e. whether the percentage of items completed = 100% (Table 7).
About the same percentage of items as in COSMIN (61% of the STARD items) showed high percentage agreement (i.e. above 80%).
