ライフサイエンスコーパス: Likert scale

1 r Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index (Likert scale).

2 ip) and subjective depth perception (using a Likert scale).

3 ly), and global change in pain and function (Likert scales).

4 r confidence in that prediction on a 5-point Likert scale.

5 ortance of each diagnostic item on a 5-point Likert scale.

6 th conventional grids by using a three-level Likert scale.

7 nfidence of each lesion was measured using a Likert scale.

8 istributed for final ranking using a 3-point Likert scale.

9 rs. X's family?" answered using a five-point Likert scale.

10 mage quality was evaluated with a five-point Likert scale.

11 lt stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.

12 rding attitudes toward AUPKE using a 5-point Likert Scale.

13 ropriate final needle position on a 10-point Likert scale.

14 20 images for fracture by using a five-point Likert scale.

15 leasantness of slides was rated on a 7-point Likert scale.

16 up sessions between 4.4 and 4.9 on a 5-point Likert scale.

17 ions of training and experience on a 6-point Likert scale.

18 d career satisfaction were assessed by using Likert scales.

19 n Yes/No responses, frequency responses, and Likert scales.

20 iquantitatively for stenosis degree by using Likert scales.

21 ent satisfaction were measured using 5-point Likert scales.

22 eptions of Privacy Rule influence on 5-point Likert scales.

23 Responses were assessed by means of 5-point Likert scales.

24 lization of euthanasia/PAS were scored using Likert scales.

25 verage daily pain score based on an 11-point Likert scale (0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain) from

26 ily pain severity as measured on an 11-point Likert scale (0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain).

27 Patient-reported pain was measured on a Likert scale (0-10) at standard time intervals.

28 ation of moderately bad symptoms (based on a Likert scale, 0, normal; 6, as bad as it could be), visu

29 All questions were on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agre

30 comfort levels with caring for CCSs (7-point Likert scale: 1 = very uncomfortable, 7 = very comfortab

31 h available surveillance guidelines (7-point Likert scale: 1 = very unfamiliar, 7 = very familiar), a

32 sing interventions were investigated using a Likert scale: 1=very much to 5=not at all.

33 the abstracts were graded by using a 7-point Likert scale; 1 for strong endorsement of the control ar

34 rog/kg compared with placebo, as assessed by Likert scale (17 of 42 patients [40%] moderately or mark

35 out the PolyHeme study was 0.58 on a 5-point Likert scale (-2 to +2).

36 ed SPECT and CT images was visually (5-point Likert scale, 2 interpreters) and quantitatively (contra

37 l competence were categorized into 5 groups; Likert scales (37), benchmarks (31), binary outcomes (11

38 excellent quality to enhance communication (Likert scale: 4.4 +/- 0.7).

39 outcome was educational environment (5-point Likert scale anchored between 1 [strongly agree] and 5 [

40 ed to the borderline videos, using a 6-point Likert scale (anchors included: 1, well below expectatio

41 y management of STS were scored on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using analysis of variance.

42 Likert scale and commentary responses were recorded to s

43 A survey of Likert scale and open-ended questions demonstrated overw

44 rials in kidney transplantation on a 9-point Likert scale and provided comments.

45 aring loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks

46 The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying impor

47 preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two appro

48 Dyspnea (assessed using a 7-point Likert scale) and hemodynamic parameters were measured s

49 ported overall health (measured on a 5 point Likert scale) and psychological distress (Kessler 6 [K6]

50 eported dyspnea was measured using a 7-point Likert scale, and patients experiencing moderate or mark

51 at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitali

52 grid, and a PTFOS grid by using a four-level Likert scale, and the mean ratings were compared between

53 Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor.

54 n round 2, items were ranked using a 5-point Likert scale; attendees were also asked to submit any ne

55 and CEA used a seven-point (1, low; 7, high) Likert scale based on reasonableness of assumptions, qua

56 ) and overall diagnoses were made by using a Likert scale both before and after MR imaging.

57 essment) and perceived KT knowledge (5-point Likert scale, collapsed empirically to 4 points); we als

58 Survey items used a 5-point Likert scale designed to elicit oncologists' practices a

59 tive clothing and sunscreen) using a 5-point Likert scale, duration of outdoor activities, and number

60 e or marked dyspnoea improvement measured by Likert scale during the first 24 h, both analysed by int

61 anel rated 90 candidate metrics on a 9-point Likert scale for association with 4 criteria: improved a

62 ttawa GRS was used, which provides a 7-point Likert scale for performance in five categories of CRM a

63 s lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001

64 higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032

65 was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223

66 was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008

67 logists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the T

68 onths, symptoms were scored by patients on a Likert scale (frequency: 0 = Never to 10 = Every time I

69 atings of identified HCT outcomes rated on a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (very important

70 Confidence scores were measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5.

71 ns related to financial concerns (five-point Likert scales): "How much of a burden on you is the cost

72 1.83 points (95% CI, 1.60-2.06) on a 5-point Likert scale in the RMS group and by 2.04 points (95% CI

73 rch more difficult at a level of 4 to 5 on a Likert scale, in which 5 indicates a great deal of added

74 On a 1 to 5 Likert scale, intervention residents outscored controls

75 safety and education were measured using 12 Likert scale items.

76 online survey and they scored, using 5-point Likert scales, items that are eligible as diagnostic cri

77 interobserver agreement was observed for the Likert scale (kappa = 0.80) and the summed PI-RADS (kapp

78 eening questions scored using the five-point Likert scale (low, moderate, high).

79 ther two single-item fatigue measures (i.e., Likert scale, numeric rating scale) or a short fatigue m

80 ssment of pain in the study joint (0-4-point Likert scale) over days 2-5.

81 b than private practitioners (4.3 vs. 3.4 by Likert scale, P < 0.05).

82 n specialists' (mean 5.9 vs 5.1 on a 7-point Likert scale; P<.001), and approval was strongly associa

83 On a 5-point Likert scale, PCPs rated medication (4.65+/-0.74), patie

84 ficant effect on the other primary endpoint (Likert scale; placebo, 150 patients [26%]; serelaxin, 15

85 Participant satisfaction was assessed with a Likert-scale questionnaire.

86 luated and image quality was assessed with a Likert-scale questionnaire.

87 Four-point Likert scale questionnaires were used to evaluate reside

88 each for likelihood of malignancy by using a Likert scale (range, 1-5).

89 y assessed by 11 independent readers using a Likert scale ranging from a position score of 0 = no evi

90 ng dialysis initiation on a modified 8-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("definitely not") to 8 ("d

91 Likert scale ratings correlated with those on a visual a

92 d higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively.

93 of structured handover tool was evaluated by Likert scale responses in the second survey.

94 al prostate biopsies and had one suspicious (Likert scale score, >/=3) focus at prebiopsy 1.5-T multi

95 utilized as a treatment modality (mean [SEM] Likert scale score, 2.44 [0.12]; P < .001).

96 en summed PI-RADS scores of 9 or greater and Likert scale scores of 3 or greater in the detection of

97 The respective data for Likert scale scores of 3 or greater were 93.8%, 73.6%, 4

98 es for the summed PI-RADS scores and for the Likert scale scores.

99 Likert scale survey questionnaire responses indicating o

100 A Likert scale survey was conducted among the 9 physicians

101 The self-rated Likert-scaled symptom checklist, the SF-36, and the Spit

102 , in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale.

103 Using a 5-point Likert scale, the survey assessed differences in satisfa

104 Participants (n = 64) used a Likert scale to judge the preferences of another person

105 (VCDQ) rated the impact of each on a 5-point Likert scale (total score range 12-60) and was tested fo

106 Dyspnea relief by Likert scale was similar between groups at 8 h (25% mode

107 A five-point Likert scale was used for survey answers.

108 DI (by Likert scale) was collected at hours 6 and 24.

109 gh levels of anxiety (median 8.4 on 10-point Likert scale) when compared to supervised introduction (

110 ty culture survey item was rated on a 1 to 5 Likert scale with lower scores representing better patie