We implemented another difference-in-differences analysis using a different sample window, with the pre-ban period ranging from October 2010 to June 2011, and post-ban from October 2011 to June 2012 (see Supporting information Table S6).
In a separate study, concurrent validity was explored using a different sample of 3-and-4-year-olds (n = 1241).
As our study examined Park's two-factor model using a Japanese sample, a promising study would be to test our two-factor model and Park's model using a different sample to evaluate how those models are acceptable with a different research context.
In the current work we evaluated the functional connectivity of this midbrain region (Talairach coordinates xyz = [−6, −15, −18] mm) with the rest of the brain using a different sample and a simplified version of the stimulation paradigm.
For each marker, we used a different sample of trees.
Each of the three studies used a different sample set, but all of the samples were of African American heritage.
Phase 1 addressed hypotheses 1 and 2. Phase 2 addressed hypothesis 3 using a different sample of children.
In addition, the decision to use a different sample size must be independent of the observed outcome data.
Analysis using a different sample window: in the main analysis, the pre-ban period (January 2011 September 2011) and the post-ban period (October 2011 June 2012) cover different months of the year.
The study reported here, using a different sample, was conducted to investigate what participants believed were critical factors in helping to achieving actual network impacts.
