Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
The level of missing data and the frequency of floor effects (number of respondents with the lowest possible score) and ceiling effects (number of respondents with the highest possible score) were also reviewed for items and scales.
Following factor analysis, corrected item-total correlations were reviewed for items within the factors identified; items that correlated with the total score below 0.30 were considered for deletion [ 21].
Similar(58)
Table 1 shows the most relevant articles reviewed for the items generation.
In addition, the STARD [ 11] and QUADAS [ 12] resources were reviewed for additional items not already identified.
Different optimization criteria are reviewed for one-item testing (single and replicated), and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
A sample of national health workforce surveys was reviewed for relevant data items.
Briefly, each study was reviewed for relevant evidence items, which were given a weighting based on the study design according to the pre-defined rules in Eco Evidence (Norris and others 2012).
Each item was reviewed for the skills involved in responding to the item and it was a matter of substantive interpretation.
For content validity, survey items were reviewed for relevance and clarity.
The items were reviewed for content and face validity by researchers with expertise in child weight issues and school health.
The items were reviewed for completeness and sufficiency by ten junior doctors working at the Medical Faculty of Erlangen University.
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