These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31414829)

  • 1. Selecting response anchors with equal intervals for summated rating scales.
    Casper WC; Edwards BD; Wallace JC; Landis RS; Fife DA
    J Appl Psychol; 2020 Apr; 105(4):390-409. PubMed ID: 31414829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness.
    Colquitt JA; Sabey TB; Rodell JB; Hill ET
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Oct; 104(10):1243-1265. PubMed ID: 30945879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Semantic Scale Network: An online tool to detect semantic overlap of psychological scales and prevent scale redundancies.
    Rosenbusch H; Wanders F; Pit IL
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Jun; 25(3):380-392. PubMed ID: 31599615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Borg's rating of perceived exertion scales: do the verbal anchors mean the same for different clinical groups?
    Dawes HN; Barker KL; Cockburn J; Roach N; Scott O; Wade D
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2005 May; 86(5):912-6. PubMed ID: 15895336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On measurements and their quality. Paper 4: verbal anchors and the number of response options in rating scales.
    Beckstead JW
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2014 May; 51(5):807-14. PubMed ID: 24125584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings.
    Awan SN; Lawson LL
    J Voice; 2009 May; 23(3):341-52. PubMed ID: 18346869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A cautionary tale on treating measurement error.
    Zhang Q
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Apr; 29(2):308-330. PubMed ID: 35604700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Interval Anchoring Effect.
    Liu M; Zeng J; Gao Z
    Exp Psychol; 2021 Nov; 68(6):295-304. PubMed ID: 35258361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Does Making the Numerical Values of Verbal Anchors on a Rating Scale Available to Examiners Inflate Scores on a Long Case Examination?
    Devine LA; Stroud L; Gupta R; Lorens E; Robertson S; Panisko D
    Acad Med; 2016 Jan; 91(1):127-32. PubMed ID: 26375265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Frequency vs. intensity: Framing effects on patients' use of verbal rating scale anchors.
    Krabbe J; Forkmann T
    Compr Psychiatry; 2014 Nov; 55(8):1928-36. PubMed ID: 25152140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error variance and measurement unreliability.
    Braun MT; Converse PD; Oswald FL
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 Apr; 104(4):593-602. PubMed ID: 30321030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument.
    Yost KJ; Sorensen MV; Hahn EA; Glendenning GA; Gnanasakthy A; Cella D
    Value Health; 2005; 8(2):117-27. PubMed ID: 15804320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A psychometric analysis of the measurement level of the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble.
    Cook KF; Ashton CM; Byrne MM; Brody B; Geraci J; Giesler RB; Hanita M; Souchek J; Wray NP
    Soc Sci Med; 2001 Nov; 53(10):1275-85. PubMed ID: 11676400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores.
    Coon CD; Cook KF
    Qual Life Res; 2018 Jan; 27(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 28620874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. From alpha to omega and beyond! A look at the past, present, and (possible) future of psychometric soundness in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
    Cortina JM; Sheng Z; Keener SK; Keeler KR; Grubb LK; Schmitt N; Tonidandel S; Summerville KM; Heggestad ED; Banks GC
    J Appl Psychol; 2020 Dec; 105(12):1351-1381. PubMed ID: 32772525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A multidimensional model of legal cynicism.
    Gifford FE; Reisig MD
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Aug; 43(4):383-396. PubMed ID: 30958019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Assessment of the distance between categories in rating scales by using the item response model].
    Wakita T
    Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 2004 Oct; 75(4):331-8. PubMed ID: 15747553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods.
    Hobart J; Cano S
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Feb; 13(12):iii, ix-x, 1-177. PubMed ID: 19216837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Common problems in using, modifying, and reporting on classic measurement instruments.
    Daltroy LH
    Arthritis Care Res; 1997 Dec; 10(6):441-7. PubMed ID: 9481236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.
    Mouelhi Y; Jouve E; Castelli C; Gentile S
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2020 May; 18(1):136. PubMed ID: 32398083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.