Exact(5)
We averaged the five plausible scores on scientific literacy.
Overall more implausible (IV) than plausible scores (PV) were observed (A: IS = 65%, PS = 35%).
Implausible indicator scores were more often estimated (91%) as compared to calculated (38%) whereas plausible scores (scores < 100%) were more often calculated (62%) as compared to estimated (9%).
We sample from the marginal distribution in order to obtain plausible scores for subjects with similar response patterns and background characteristics as in the sample of subjects [ 20, 21].
Finally, to see whether the plausibility of the indicator scores was more associated to the composition strategy as compared to the data infrastructure we summated across all data-infrastructure categories (NA + DA + EA) all the indicators that were calculated and checked whether they were implausible or plausible scores and did the same for the estimated indicators.
Similar(55)
In the current study we used the following variables of interest: 1) The plausibility of the PI score: plausible score (PS): a score larger than 0% and smaller than 100%; implausible score (IS): a score of 0% or 100%.
We recommend using the PPV, the NNE and/or the estimated rate of alerts combined with sensitivity to evaluate each of the plausible score cutoff values.
Note: IS Implausible (100% or 0%) Score, PS Plausible score (<100%), MV missing value, NA Not available, EA easy access category, DA Difficult Access category, Cal calculation, Est Estimation; All data in frequencies.
In the 2006 tests half the students were not asked any reading questions but were allocated "plausible" reading scores to help calculate their countries' rankings.
Our results suggest that a nationally organized registry (in the case of breast cancer) led to more plausible indicator scores.
However, easy accessible data yielded more plausible indicator scores (PS = 64%; IS = 38%) as compared to the difficult access indicators (PS = 27%; DA, IS = 73%; χ (1) = 24.64, p < 0.01).
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