Similar(60)
In this regard, it is important to study the two language versions of the FCQ to see whether these adequately assess the same factors that facilitate student motivation among the bilingual Filipino learners.
Given the bilingual characteristics of the study population, the two language versions used in the study (Spanish and Catalan) were also randomized between individuals, with each student answering the web and paper version of the same language.
The instrument was well-accepted by the patients and its psychometric properties were similar to those reported in validation studies of other language versions.
In general, results of both the between-network and within-network studies showed that both language versions were applicable for the bilingual Filipino adolescents in the study.
All language versions of study instruments used in this study have demonstrated good psychometric properties.
There are only four studies in which different language versions have been applied.
The results obtained with the proposed test fully paralleled those obtained in previous studies in the other language versions [ 32– 35] and were in line with results reported for conventional clinical tests of speech-in-noise recognition [ 50, 56– 56].
Obtaining more information about the generalizability of findings concerning the EQ-5D-3L items would require more studies in which different language versions of the EQ-5D-3L appliedlindifferenterent countries.
For this study, the English language version of the WHO-5 was used for all participants.
We considered it important to test the two language versions in this study, as the population of Catalonia is largely bilingual and it is important to be able to offer both language versions for use in surveys there.
For the study reported here, the respective German language versions were used, which are available for all instruments and whose psychometric quality criteria have already been tested in various studies and were found to be satisfactory to good overall (cf. e.g. [ 43, 44] for the HRQOL instruments).
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