Sentence examples for scale were evaluated using from inspiring English sources

Construct validity, reliability and concurrent validity of the scale were evaluated using Stata v10.0.

The relationships between scores on each scale were evaluated using Pearson's r-correlations.

Correlations between HES1 expression levels and other markers on a continuous scale were evaluated using linear regression analysis.

Associations between markers and clinical parameters that were measured on a continuous or ordinal scale were evaluated using Kendall's Tau coefficient.

With a possible range of 1 to 6, the overall DDS and each sub-component scale were evaluated using the following: a mean score of <2, indicating no distress; a mean score between 2 2.9, indicating moderate distress; and a mean score ≥3, indicating high distress.

The accuracy of DPSO-SFIM in mapping inundation at a sub-pixel scale was evaluated using Landsat ETM + images from study areas in Australia and China.

The factorial structure of the scale was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), but since the scale items were dichotomous, the model was estimated using tetrachoric correlations and the weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted estimation procedure implemented in Mplus 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA).

Internal consistency of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.

Each included scale was evaluated using pre-defined criteria including the OMERACT filter of truth, discrimination and feasibility.

The reliability of the GOHAI-T scale was evaluated using the internal consistency approach (Cronbach's alpha) in the presence and absence of each item for the subjects.

In this study, the biomechanical status of different grades of keratoconus, segregated based on a custom severity scale, was evaluated using the Corvis-ST.