For analytic purposes, responses to these two questions were dichotomized as "ever" ("often," "sometimes" or "rarely") versus "never".
They believe, to the contrary, that, in the light of our common humanity, which speaks to the common sentiments, purposes, responses, hopes, and aspirations of all human beings in respect of certain situations, the conclusions of their reflections would, surely, have implications for the capacious community of humankind, for the universal human family.
(21 ) For analysis purposes, responses were binned into a binary variable of "satisfied" or "dissatisfied".
For data cleaning purposes responses were removed where the questionnaire had only been partially completed.
For scoring purposes, responses related to the first 2 replacement questions were dichotomized around the median (3+ days per week vs. < 2 days per week).
For analysis purposes, responses of "neutral" were considered to be a negative response and grouped with the "disagree" and "strongly disagree" responses as a more conservative method of assessing satisfaction, while "strongly agree" and "agree" responses were combined.
For analytical purposes, responses were divided between those who were inclined to take health risks (i.e., "Strongly Agree" or "Agree") and those disinclined to take health risks (i.e., "Neutral", "Disagree", or "Agree").
"Over the last twelve months would you say your health has on the whole been: good, fairly good or not good?" For modelling purposes, responses were dichotomised not good health versus good/fairly good in line with other studies using this question [ 7, 19].
He proposed that she send out an all-purpose response, with a section on favorite recipes.
