Studies using better instruments can be performed with smaller sample sizes, but better instruments may be more expensive in terms of dollars, opportunity cost, or poorer data quality due to the response burden of longer instruments.
Results of this study suggest that using existing instruments can be a cost effective way of meeting the required SIL, which eliminates all the hassle and potential risk introduced when bringing in new instruments to the design.
The use of instruments can be intricate and multifarious because of the risk of excluding central elements.
The accuracy of the measurements depends on the instrument used and, with some instruments, can be affected by interferences from other chemicals present in the air (e.g., ammonia, cat urine, chlorine bleach, tobacco smoke).
Because the use of weak instruments can be problematic in statistical analysis, we ultimately decided to use only two instruments (Bartels 1991).
Information on the use of these instruments can be found through the Technology Transfer Network of the U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 2003a).
Scientific advocacy for the use of such instruments can be valuable to measure outcomes that are meaningful to the ADHD adolescents and the clinical community.
In both cases, when used at more than 2 time points during an episode of care, the instruments can be used to monitor the outcomes of intervention.
These instruments can be used remotely from a safe distance and can be used even during an eruptive period.
However, mean ACD measurements using UBM and Artemis-2 VHFUS were not significantly different and, therefore, these instruments can be used interchangeably.
