Similar(59)
The interview is highly structured with three possible answers for each item (yes, scored as 1; yes to some extent, scored as 0.5; and no, scored as 0).
The "yes" score ranged from 0 to 14. Fulfillment of the methodological quality criteria for each article was considered high, acceptable, or low when the "yes" score covered >70%, 50 70%, or <50%, respectively.
Subjects with lower maximum internal rotation shoulder moments on the leading (left) side had an increased likelihood of a "yes" score for item 2. Lower average resultant shoulder moment on the trailing (right) side and lower maximum rate of rise of resultant shoulder moment on the leading (left) side corresponded with a "yes" score on item 6.
Key: * accessed by PEDro with same score obtained ✓ yes (not scored) (x) PEDro assessment by PEDro reviewers differs and is x 1 yes (scored) 0 no Study design features are shown in Table 2. Participant numbers reported in Table 2 are the numbers initially allocated to groups.
The score on this variable was "yes" (score = 1) if the respondent rated their self-efficacy and "no" (score = 0) if the respondent gave the final answer "I don 't know; I don't use the Internet".
Lower average resultant shoulder force and higher maximum rate of rise of resultant shoulder moment on the leading (left) side were associated with a "yes" score on item 1 (Table 5).
Study participant responses were "yes, usually" (scored 0); "yes, sometimes" (scored 1); and "no" (scored 2).
All item answers are indicated as "yes" (score = 1), "no" (score = 0), or "unable to determine" (score = U).
Responses are scored as yes (score = 1) or no (score = 0).
The disability score was assessed via the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire [ 24] and categorized as disability "yes" (score ≥0.5) or "no" (score <0.5) as suggested in literature [ 25].
The responding alternative "yes, usually" scored three points, "yes, sometimes" scored two points, and "no" scored one point for the questions on meaningfulness and manageability; the question on comprehensibility was scored in the reverse order.
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