Taken together, the effect of such procedural differences is staggering, experts say.
Along with these advantages, however, comes the possibility of inter-site variability as a result of procedural differences between the study centers, such as variations in applying the study protocol [ 1].
In fact, we believe there is no such contradiction, because major procedural differences, most notably the focus of previous studies on testing probability weighting within domain, with subjects choosing between pairs of learned-probability options or pairs of described-probability ones, are likely to account for any apparent difference.
However, there are large procedural differences between the linear number line board game studies and the whole-body movement studies such as group versus one-on-one administration and number of training sessions to name only a few, that do not allow a straightforward comparison of the two intervention approaches.
These procedural differences reduced the usefulness of the single term délit.
The two cases, Ewing v. California, No. 01-6978, and Lockyer v. Andrade, No. 01-1127, had significant procedural differences.
Unfortunately, the procedural differences that exist between laboratories make it difficult to duplicate and compare results among laboratories.
This may be related to procedural differences.
There are, however, a number of procedural differences.
However, there are significant procedural differences between the studies.
