Drawing on the results of a 1997 evaluation of Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, a revised set of indicators was developed by partners and included in new surveys in order to provide a broader base from which to measure progress.
Furthermore, archived spectrophotometric pH data can be quantitatively revised should improved indicator equilibrium constants and molar absorptivity ratios later become available.
The household survey, however, is not revised, so that recession indicator, shown in the bottom chart, will remain.
Based on them, the composite indicator was revised back to 2002, with new components replacing the old ones.
Furthermore, the GDP deflator, which is considered an inflation indicator, was revised up to 1.6% from 1.5%.
This single factor has to be revised carefully when this indicator is employed in other countries because casualties might not always be the best measure to differentiate the severeness of hazard events.
Following suggestions from both Hospital A and B staff, the revised scorecard featured fewer indicators overall; also, following Hospital B pharmacists' recommendation, indicators related to prescribing were added (figure 1B).
After the field visit, previously developed indicators were revised and finalized to their current form.
Based on this exercise, we revised some of the indicators or weights used in the scoring rubric to maintain consistency with the theory associated with number sequences (e.g., Steffe, 1992; Steffe & Olive, 2010; Ulrich, 2016a, b).
This first version comprised six principal drug-specific indicators, each containing 1 7 individual items, and 11 principal diagnosis specific indicators, each with 3 10 items on rational, irrational and hazardous drug treatment (Table 2).> During 2008 2010 the indicators were revised and updated.
