The worst case evaluations are based on the filter taps with separation of r samples that have the highest sum-power.
2015 Object case Evaluation of a treatment option N = 46 Wittenberg E, Bharel M, Saada A, Santiago E, Bridges JF, Weinreb L [64] Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey.
2014 Multiprofile case Evaluation of follow-up interventions N = 132 Response rate 47 % dosReis S, Ng X, Frosch E, Reeves G, Cunningham C, Bridges JF [67] Using Best-Worst Scaling to Measure Caregiver Preferences for Managing their Child's ADHD: A Pilot Study.
2014 Profile case Evaluation of a treatment option N = 21 (development) N = 37 (pilot) Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Bridges JF, Amini N, Kim Y, Pawlik TM [68] Choosing a cancer surgeon: analyzing factors in patient decision making using a best-worst scaling methodology.
This section provides a worst-case analytic evaluation of the scalability of our taxonomy scheme.
This can be considered worst case for the evaluation of potential effects of ingredients, because the cigarette nicotine content and thus the smoke yield of nicotine as the basis of the comparison automatically decreases with increasing ingredient applications levels.
Worst-case analytic evaluation of this scheme indicates that it has minimal overhead even for large type systems.
Moreover, our approach for worst case norm evaluation is compared with other approaches available in literature.
They simply considered the worst case for each of evaluation points without considering seismological or geophysical rupture scenarios.
Since the total number of parameters is equal to 3, in the worst case the number of required evaluations is 6.
