ライフサイエンスコーパス: Likert scale

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

2 to work, and financial burden (on a 10-point Likert scale).

3 tly high scores (greater than 4 on a 5-point Likert scale).

4 ed quality of patient care provided (5-point Likert scale).

5 devices to calm children when upset (5-point Likert scale).

6 using the direct-ranking elicitation method (Likert scale).

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

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

9 Responses were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale.

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

11 20 images for fracture by using a five-point Likert scale.

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

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

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

15 group, with 20 items scored along a 5-point Likert scale.

16 fective responses were measured by a 12-item Likert scale.

17 experts from five countries using a 7-point Likert scale.

18 All items were rated on a 1-5 point Likert scale.

19 rate the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale.

20 elihood of recommending ERAP using a 5-point Likert scale.

21 sitive surgical margin (PSM) using a 5-point Likert scale.

22 bjectively by 2 observers based on a 5-point Likert scale.

23 using a 13-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale.

24 t 70% agreed or strongly agreed on a 5-point Likert scale.

25 uncertain, or inappropriate, using a 9-point Likert scale.

26 experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale.

27 in understanding AI concepts on a five-point Likert scale.

28 pendently compared and rated on a five-point Likert scale.

29 th the generated statements, using a 5-point Likert scale.

30 f food intake frequency was assessed using a Likert scale.

31 spiracy theories with responses on a 5-point Likert scale.

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

33 were asked to score statements on a 7-point Likert scale.

34 ntal acceptance was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale.

35 disagreement with statements using a 5-point Likert scale.

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

37 on, and perceived level of care on a 5-point Likert scale.

38 l of cancer anxiety as measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

39 eading definitions from phase 1 on a 9-point Likert scale.

40 xperienced neuroradiologists using a 5-point Likert scale.

41 itative image scores were rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

42 oracic radiologists using a 5-point modified Likert scale.

43 d 8 strategies by importance using a 5-point Likert scale.

44 Satisfaction was measured using a 5-point Likert scale.

45 illness, and patient satisfaction rated on a Likert scale.

46 al care of glaucoma patients using a 4-point Likert scale.

47 mentation burden, were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale.

48 ared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale.

49 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale.

50 ting the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale.

51 with study medications based on the GSS and Likert scale.

52 ship, and career motivations using a 5-point Likert scale.

53 rgency department physicians using a 5-point Likert scale.

54 uates on each characteristic using a 5-point Likert scale.

55 their confidence in prediction on a 5-point Likert scale.

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

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

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

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

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

61 Image quality was rated on a four-point Likert scale.

62 six: acceptable - somewhat" in a seven-point Likert scale.

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

64 quality was subjectively judged on a 3-point Likert scale.

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

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

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

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

69 d career satisfaction were assessed by using Likert scales.

70 d T2-weighted heterogeneity using five-point Likert scales.

71 ation of 5 patient volunteers, using 5-point Likert scales.

72 MS safe use requirements were measured using Likert scales.

73 ess, timeliness, and usability using 5-point Likert scales.

74 iences with their intervention using 5-point Likert scales.

75 s assessed values and preferences, graded on Likert scales.

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

77 iquantitatively for stenosis degree by using Likert scales.

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

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

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

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

82 The body was divided into 10 regions, and Likert scales (0-4) were created to quantify scale and e

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

84 jective image quality was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = excellent to 5 = non-diagnostic).

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

86 A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)

87 onspicuity, artifact, noise) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = worst, 3 = acceptable, 5 = best), in w

88 nts rated each conjoint profile on a 5-point Likert scale (1-5) measuring their willingness to share

89 e stabilization, were assessed using 5-point Likert scales (1 = extremely unlikely or strongly disagr

90 nsus assessment of image quality (five-point Likert scale: 1 = excellent [absence of artifacts], 5 =

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

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

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

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

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

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

97 ge quality were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (-2 to 2) and lung signal-to-noise ratios (

98 their agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale (-2, strongly disagree; -1, disagree; 0, ne

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

100 [P < .001]; image quality score [five-point Likert scale:], 3.58 +/- 0.75 vs 2.87 +/- 0.51 [P < .001

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

102 Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (-4 to +4) that reflected the potential ef

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

104 ality of the images was evaluated by using a Likert scale (5 = high image quality, 1 = nondiagnostic)

105 ng a validated instrument based on a 5-point Likert scale (5="master surgeon" and 1="surgeon-in-train

106 Panelists rated 41 QIs on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 criteria: importance, suppor

107 were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria:

108 plan, and adolescents rated each rule (using Likert scales) according to whether the rule was present

109 It employed a 5-point Likert scale, addressing on both the frequency and the d

110 Using a 7-point Likert scale, all participants completed a questionnaire

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

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

113 ity to conduct cancer trials using a 4-point Likert scale and 8 strategies by importance using a 5-po

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

115 Likert scale and commentary responses were recorded to s

116 sfaction measures were measured on a 5-point Likert scale and compared by surgeon type.

117 with a series of statements using a 4-point Likert scale and compared PCCs and gastroenterology and

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

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

120 were analyzed qualitatively using a 5-point Likert scale and quantitatively (percentage of atrial fi

121 Sleep quality was evaluated using a Likert scale and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) to ex

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

123 process, with items voted on using a 9-point Likert scale and with feedback from other participants t

124 ts were evaluated by two readers with use of Likert scales and compared with use of Wilcoxon signed-r

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

126 d attitudes toward the modules using 5-point Likert scales and free-text comments.

127 ce (AI)-generated segmentations via 10-point Likert scales and Turing tests.

128 ics XM, indicating agreement using a 4-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback.

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

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

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

132 kappa), reader-reported confidence (5-point Likert scale), and grading time.

133 s indicating worse pain), global assessment (Likert scale), and tendon thickness.

134 tain anatomic structures (using a five-point Likert scale), and the presence of lung abnormalities we

135 icipants rated each measure's relevance on a Likert scale, and consensus was evaluated using the IQR.

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

137 ach from neutrality toward the extremes of a Likert scale, and shifted the overall willingness to par

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

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

140 mmunication quality (eg, verbosity), using a Likert scale, and whether they would use the draft or st

141 Surgeons rated questions on Likert scales, and we calculated the proportion of respo

142 uestionnaire including free text and 5-point Likert scale answers was provided after each workshop.

143 the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completio

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

145 medications were assessed on the basis of a Likert scale at 2 weeks after LPI.

146 e medial and lateral menisci using a 5-point Likert scale at each keV level was determined through a

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

148 ed moderate agreement with the AI algorithm (Likert scale average, 3.7 of 5), a mild impact on their

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

150 linicians (695 women [82.1%]) responded to a Likert scale-based questionnaire (71% response rate).

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

152 Image quality was graded on a five-point Likert scale by clinical raters (3 = clinically acceptab

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

154 ion content quality (eg, relevance), using a Likert scale, communication quality (eg, verbosity), usi

155 C pairs with A/B testing on the 4Cs (5-point Likert scales converted to 10-point bidirectional scales

156 ces), and subjective expert ratings (5-point Likert scale corresponding to items on the Patient Educa

157 ding effects of response bias on self-report Likert scale data.

158 Likert scale-defined image quality was rated good or exc

159 (25%), and PET(AI) and PET(100%) had similar Likert scale-defined image quality.

160 model requires nothing further than standard Likert scale design assumptions.

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

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

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

164 Likert scale evaluations of clinical skills, standardize

165 cal and mental health, measured on a 4-point Likert scale (excellent, very good, good, fair/poor).

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

167 sually by clinical raters using a five-point Likert scale for each of four categories (namely, conspi

168 reasoning of LLMs was rated on a five-point Likert scale for factual correctness and accuracy.

169 On the five-point Likert scale for image quality, AR-SMS imaging scored 1.

170 ely assessed the images using the five-point Likert scale for image quality, lesion diagnostic confid

171 d image series independently on a five-point Likert scale for image SNR, anatomic conspicuity, overal

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

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

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

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

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

177 their diagnostic confidence on a four-point Likert scale for sequential segmental analysis on images

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

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

180 uthorship of the submissions on a four-point Likert scale from 'Definitely AI' to 'Definitely Human'.

181 of the Pure Procrastination Scale rated on a Likert scale from 1 ("very rarely or does not represent

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

183 f the quality, empathy, and readability on a Likert scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).

184 Image quality was rated subjectively using a Likert scale from 1 to 5.

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

186 image quality metrics (SNR, CNR, subjective Likert scale from 1-unacceptable to 4-higher than needed

187 picion for recurrence was rated on a 5-point Likert scale from definitely no recurrence (1) to highly

188 l image quality was assessed on a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = nondiagnostic to 4 = good image q

189 litatively by two readers using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = nondiagnostic to 5 = excellent) a

190 nnaire comprising 16 questions answered on a Likert scale (from 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly dis

191 ability in clinical practice on a four-point Likert scale (fully available, mostly/often available, m

192 inical NOA(16) images by using a three-point Likert scale (good, average, or poor; statistical signif

193 e that contained 4 concise questions, with a Likert-scale grading relating to cosmetic satisfaction w

194 pervasive use, self-report measures such as Likert scales have a profound problem: Standard analytic

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

196 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

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

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

199 ticipant-reported scores on nine seven-point Likert scale items, and composite scores, in the domains

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

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

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

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

204 , which incorporates fixed criteria, and the Likert scale (LS), which mainly depends on an overall im

205 nt; 3) starting and current salaries; and 4) Likert-scale measurements of career satisfaction were an

206 nts rated each conjoint profile on a 5-point Likert scale measuring their willingness to share their

207 use in public places every 3 months (5-point Likert scale: never to always) from August 14, 2020, to

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

209 The survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely import

210 lear medicine physicians and scored (using a Likert scale of 1-5) on tumor lesion demarcation, overal

211 the performance of the tool using a 5-point Likert scale on an additional 75 randomly selected test

212 The PRS group was timed and scored (5-point Likert scale) on 10 repetitions of each task.

213 the decision-making process on a seven-point Likert scale or with open-ended questions.

214 ment (odds ratio [OR] per 1 level of 5-level Likert scale OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51), leadership (O

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

216 which also had a higher comfort score on the Likert scale (P = 0.004).

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

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

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

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

221 ing the System Usability Scale, a customized Likert-scale questionnaire (5-point scale), and semistru

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

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

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

225 The process involved 3 rounds of online Likert-scale questionnaires and a hybrid (online and in-

226 including 30 polar questions and 11 7-point Likert scale questions, which covers the multidimensiona

227 A series of Likert-scaled questions were used to identify potential

228 SMA PET/CT and mpMRI readers using a 5-point Likert scale (range, 0.53-0.64).

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

230 Responses were recorded via a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("strongly agree") to 6 ("st

231 that can be rated by patients with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (st

232 (PAs) rated the photographs using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(poor) to 5(excellent) and th

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

234 ne initiation was assessed through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly

235 l Impression of Improvement scale, a 7-point Likert scale ranging from very much better to very much

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

237 the spread of COVID-19 infection, rated on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (s

238 ty parameters and the presence of artifacts (Likert scale rating ranging from 1 [very bad/severe] to

239 Likert scale ratings correlated with those on a visual a

240 p-box (top most; eg, strongly agree) 5-point Likert scale ratings for 3 Children's Hospital Safety Cl

241 of model-assisted reports, the difference in Likert-scale ratings using a cumulative-link mixed model

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

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

244 The primary outcomes were Likert scale responses regarding frequency of barriers t

245 ied endotype-specific medical therapy with a Likert scale score >= 6 for all endotypes.

246 oms, and cardiovascular symptoms) based on a Likert scale score at 10 weeks.

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

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

249 the CLT group than the SLT group (mean [SD] Likert scale score, 3.3 [1.3] vs 4.1 [1.0]; P = .007).

250 ter in the intervention group (4.57 +/- 0.71 Likert scale score; mean +/- SD) than in the active-cont

251 were evaluated by experts in morphea using a Likert scale (score range, 0-10, with 0 indicating not i

252 two readers (R1 and R2) using 5- or 3-point Likert scales (score of 1 reflects the best value per ca

253 items in the FCRI-SF was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, scored from 0 to 4, with a maximum possibl

254 In oncologic reasoning, GPT-4 had higher Likert scale scores for factual correctness (4.3 vs 3.9)

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

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

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

258 ncluded misinformation scored using a 5-item Likert scale (scores from 1 [no misinformation] to 5 [hi

259 e invasion were assessed by using five-point Likert scales; scores of 4 or higher were classified as

260 Conclusion DW imaging using the five-point Likert scale showed high specificity and moderate sensit

261 triggering their symptoms using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

262 Likert scale survey questionnaire responses indicating o

263 A Likert scale survey was conducted among the 9 physicians

264 fectiveness of the program was studied using Likert-scale survey data.

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

266 t were individually measured using a 4-point Likert scale), TBI symptoms (measured by the Rivermead P

267 at the Kellogg Eye Center and completed the Likert-scaled telephone-administered questionnaire.

268 iterion questions and then took the 81-item, Likert-scale test.

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

270 ard people with OUD were measured on 5-point Likert scales that included items about desire for socia

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

272 Survey data were collected using a 5-point Likert scale to assess physician perceptions of institut

273 stionnaire-2 of 3 or higher (the tool uses a Likert scale to determine the frequency [0 = not at all;

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

275 tributed asking participants to use the same Likert scale to rate 31 "write-in" articles suggested in

276 Panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate and then discuss the scientific val

277 nd mean importance ratings (< 3 on a 5-point Likert scale) to assess both degree of agreement and ite

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

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

280 Innovative five-point Likert scale was used by two radiologists to independent

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

282 A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess level of confidence.

283 A ten-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the magnitude of cance

284 A Likert scale was utilized for questions capturing partic

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

286 ing to pain, as reported using the ten-point Likert scale, was highest for daily activities and routi

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

288 mes using 2 GQ statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 indicated strongly disagree and 5

289 KAP was estimated using a Likert scale, whereas KAP factors were determined using

290 ers to these questions for accuracy (6-point Likert scale with 1 being completely incorrect and 6 bei

291 Overall scores were based on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 representing a "master surgeon" and

292 h screening topics was reported on a 6-point Likert scale with 6 indicating highest comfort.

293 In general, a five-point Likert scale with a neutral central value was used, and

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

295 ompletely correct) and completeness (3-point Likert scale, with 1 being incomplete and 3 being comple

296 Students responded using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5

297 COVID-19 vaccines were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores denoting greater agreem

298 verity assessment was conducted on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating a more prono

299 S score (6 items, each assessed on a 3-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better self-

300 Level of sleep disruption was scored by Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more disrupt