Sentences with phrase «scale questions regarding»

The following sections provide a summary of student responses to the four Likert scale questions regarding the four objectives for using Twitter.

Not exact matches

There is therefore never any question regarding the true actor and source of the spiritual gifts distributed through this triad of bishop, priest and deacon: one canalways climb the scale of orders to Jesus Christ himself.

The working group on coupled biogeochemical cycling and controlling factors dealt with questions regarding the role of plankton diversity, how ocean biogeochemistry will respond to global changes on decadal to centennial time scales, the key biogeochemical links between the ocean, atmosphere, and climate, and the role of estuaries, shelves, and marginal seas in the capturing, transformation, and exchange of terrestrial and open - marine material.

«We were thinking through the difference between using a scale that scores responses along a range, such as a Likert scale, versus asking respondents «yes or no» - type questions, for instance regarding women's access to information or equitable decision - making in the household.

The story takes multiple garish hairpin turns, including one on such a scale that the petty (though entertaining) problems of this wacky family begin to pale — and not for the first time you may begin to question your allegiance to a show with so little regard for probability.

The timing for this will no doubt mean many questions regarding the recently discovered XP scaling system, where fans noticed that Destiny 2 was secretly scaling their experience earnings to slow down the late game progress.

Taken together, their proposals question how structures for art production, presentation, and reception are shaped and surveyed, especially with regards to the role of small - scale nonprofits.

Regarding work that actively engages imagery (which is a term I prefer to «representation»), this introduces the question of scale as central, and by extension that of scalability.

The main objective of the Action is to evaluate and improve our ability to project the consequences of environmental change for European forests by addressing questions regarding data needs, scaling, parameterization, and predictive accuracy of forest models.

Hello Tanya, in regard to your question on the overall global leveling off of temperatures just after 1945 (continueing until the mid 1970s), this was the result of full scale climate engineering deployment.

Regarding th post I quote, the question becomes then, what causes the warming and cooling phases of the oceans on multidecadal scales.

A central issue regarding any climate variable of importance for impact assessment is determining at what spatial and temporal scales the variable in question can sensibly be provided, in comparison to the scales most desired by the impacts community.

Regarding the statement that scientific questions about climate change have been resolved, Bolin observed that «considerably more research is required to fully clarify and interpret what is happening to climate, especially on a regional scale, and how changes will affect human societies over the years to come.»

Regarding the substance of the comment attributed to Mr. Wirth, namely that scientific questions about climate change have been resolved, considerably more research is required to fully clarify and interpret what is happening to climate, especially on a regional scale, and how changes will affect human societies over the years to come.

The images show that the axial valley at 4,000 m water depth is blanketed by an extensive set of pyroclastic deposits, raising important questions regarding the accumulation and discharge of magmatic volatiles on such ridges and demonstrating that large - scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system.

Several comments and replies (6 - 10) have been published regarding the new results, but one key question remains: Are the global tropical cyclone databases sufficiently reliable to ascertain long - term trends in tropical cyclone intensity, particularly in the frequency of extreme tropical cyclones (categories 4 and 5 on the Saffir - Simpson Hurricane Scale)?

An important question regarding the adequacy of resolution is deciding whether the information produced at finer scales at higher resolution feeds back on the larger scales or do the finer scales simply add to local effects (Williamson, 1999).

Such interventions have clearly failed to sway the court, however, which notes in its judgement today earlier conclusions by the European Commission that «the large - scale access by intelligence agencies to data transferred to the [U.S.] by Safe Harbor certified companies raises additional serious questions regarding the continuity of data protection rights of Europeans when their data is transferred to the [U.S.].»

Hardware wallet provider Trezor said it has received an increasing number of questions regarding potential outcomes of the scaling proposals and the possibility of a split.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiScales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

Alpha coefficients of (reliability) questions about the subscales of secure, avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles regarding a student sample (1480 people) were calculated to be respectively 0.86, 0.84 and 0.85 for all the subjects, which indicate good internal consistency of Adult Attachment Scale.

Measures include the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA), the Academic Rating Scale, the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), the Kochanska Inhibitory Control Battery, the Social Skills Rating Scale, and the Family Involvement Questionnaire, with supplemental questions regarding parental support for children's learning.

Those examiners who use these scales should be questioned regarding the amount and quality of research on these scales, what specific validity evidence exists in the research literature about them, and what are the known sources of error in these scales, as they relate to the case at hand.