Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
The percentage of respondents with scores at the ceiling (score of 100) and floor (score of 0) were calculated for each scale.
Similar(59)
Inter-correlations among MSSS-88 subscales showed high values for 'body movement' and 'walking' (r = 0.80), for 'social functioning' and 'emotional health' (r = 0.78) as well as for 'muscle stiffness' and 'muscle spasm' (r = 0.75).> -wrap-foot> *Ceiling and floor effects are the percent of people scoring the best (ceiling, score = 0) or worst (floor, score = 100) possible.
Descriptive statistics for the DSQOLS subscales showed a good distribution of scores and low floor (score of 0) and ceiling (score of 100) effects supporting the reliability of this scale (Table 1).
Along with providing descriptive statistics (ie, mean and standard deviation) for the IADCQ and SF-12v2 scores, we also assessed the overall floor and ceiling effects of the IADCQ for the purpose of assessing precision of the instrument, and the percentages of participants with the floor or ceiling scores were calculated.
Second, the distribution of the scale scores was evaluated by assessing the percentage of lowest (floor) and highest (ceiling) scores on the different scales.
This followed the work of McHorney, Ware, Lu, and Sherbourne [ 32] whereby we calculated the percent of responses with the lowest (floor) and highest (ceiling) scores.
The percentage of respondents at floor and ceiling scores were examined for each dimension of the EQ-5D.
Within each testing block different exposure durations were chosen randomly from the individually set values, aiming to characterize the full performance span from floor to ceiling scores.
The number of responses at minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) scores were reported.
Low floor and ceiling scores were observed with 0% (0/579) having the lowest possible score and 1% (6/579) having the highest possible score.
The Bayley-3 individual start, reversal, and discontinue rules and Bayley-2 basal and ceiling scoring criteria were adhered to.
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