Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(5)
The value of Pseudo R2 is 0.4608 shows that our predictors account for 46.08% of change in our outcome.
The squared correlation between the observed and predicted efficiency score (McKelvey & Zavainona 's pseudo R2 ) is 0.219, indicating that the included predictors account for nearly 22% of the variability in the outcome variable; which is rather weak.
These predictors account for 33.1% of the variation in length of surgery.
Results showed that predictors account for.381 of the variation in LOS, R = 0.62 R =0.381 Adjusted R = 0.355.
The R indicates that the predictors account for 60.9% of the variation of the grasp quality measure and as the adjusted R is similar to it, it means that the model is able to generalize.
Similar(55)
The five predictors accounted for a significant amount of variance in postquestion accuracy (R 2 = 0.20, F 5, 51) = 2.64, p = 0.034).
Multiple regression analysis showed that three predictors accounted for 53.2% of the variance in students' physio psycho-social resphysio psycho-socialresponsestress, students' gender, and personalincludings.
More variance in Token Test performance was accounted for when symptoms were treated as continuous predictors than with the other two methods, though use of independent but dichotomous predictors accounted for more variance than aphasia taxonomies.
None of the predictors accounted for a significant amount of variance in new question accuracy (ts < 1.30, ps > 0.20), with Bayesian analyses again suggesting weak evidence in favor of the null effects (BFs01 < 3).
Note, however, that the added predictors accounted for no variance at the student level given that the intercept-only regression model was specified for the student-level data analyses (see the section above headed "Analysis").
Interestingly, the same set of predictors accounted for more variability in Exposure to Evolution for the short form than the long form (14% in the EALS and 24% for the EALS-SF).
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