Sentence examples for variance in communication from inspiring English sources

Among the investigated group of doctors only a small proportion of variance in communication skills performance was accounted for by adding year of qualification into the regression model (7%).

Salisbury and colleagues noted that a high proportion of the variance in communication scores in English general practice is attributable to patients and other factors, rather than to practices or individual doctors.

Results After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%).

31 Our results suggest that despite the high proportion of patient level variance in communication scores, for this survey instrument a reliable (>0.8) adjusted mean score for individual doctors can be obtained with 46 patient scores per general practitioner, so that only a small minority of variance in reported doctor level scores is attributable to patients and residual sources.

Only 6.3% (3.8% to 8.9%) of the variance in the doctors' communication skills measure was due to differences between doctors; 92.4% (88.5% to 96.4%) of the variance occurred at the level of the patient (including differences between patients' perceptions and random variation).

The factor analysis of all the instruments together yielded a two-factor solution accounting for 67% of the total variance in the scores of communication skills (Table 5).

In the third model feeding method was added and the variance explained was 72.5%, F (5, 65) = 34.345, p < .001, accounting for an additional 0.8% of the variance in total satisfaction, after controlling for communication ratings and HADS depression sub-type, R squared change = .008, F change (1, 65) =1.833, p > .05.05

Agreeableness, emotional stability and conscientiousness were added at the final model and the overall variance explained was 74%, F (8, 62) =22.048, p < .001, accounting for an additional 1.4% of the variance in total satisfaction, after controlling for communication ratings, HADS depression sub-type and feeding method, R squared change = .014, F change (3, 62) =1.152, p > .05.05

Both sides admit a breakdown in communication.

So we were all in communication.

This can mean differences in communication style.