Study Limitations Sample Clauses

Study Limitations. Both the ICA model and the RWMA detection method are sensitive to the quality of the myocardial contours. To construct a good ICA model, high quality myocardial contours are required. This requires a low inter- and intraobserver variation in the contours (if they are manually drawn), or a low segmentation error (if the contours are segmented automatically). This issue is not specific to the proposed method, but it is inherent to any quantitative regional LV function measurement. In the present study, a binary classification between normal and abnormal motion is proposed. Classification of a specific type of abnormal motion, i.e. hypokinetic, aki- netic and dyskinetic, are not presented yet. As yet, the method therefore only serves as a computer-aided tool to draw the clinician’s attention to the suspected abnormal motion areas in the myocardium; staging of the wall motion abnormality may still be performed visually. The current automated method works by modeling contractility patterns for each ven- tricular slice level. Therefore the method does not capture the three dimensional heart

Study Limitations. Study limitations included participants with different kinds of cancer, EGFRI treatment, and dAEs. At the same time, different cancers and treatment allows testing of the questionnaire across a range of patients. Another limitation was the relatively small participant sample, however, the number of 10 participants was prescribed by the FACIT organization. All participants were residents from the Netherlands as spoken Dutch tends to vary based on geography and differences in dialect could be present in different regions. Since demographic, economic, geographic, political, and sociological differences make each culture unique, linguistic and conceptual equivalence may not necessarily assume generalizability of results across cultures (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1988). The Dutch questionnaire is only linguistically validated for the population from The Netherlands. To cover a Dutch version for all the native Dutch speakers around the world, validation should be done in those countries and in other languages.

Study Limitations. The HRET described in this study is designed for use as an objective outcome measure in ATR rehabilitation. Our use of a healthy population limits the generalisability of our findings to a clinical population. Ideally, this study should be replicated in an ATR population. This would provide important information on reliability and agreement (particularly for the limb symmetry index) and enable the computation of the smallest detectable change for treatment evaluation. The use of a single trained outcome assessor (intrarater reliability) also limits the generalisability of our findings to interrater reliability. Nevertheless, we would anticipate similar interrater reliability and agreement if the standardisation procedures described in this study are adhered to.

Study Limitations. The present study has some limitations. The motivational information was phrased as if an adult told the students why the assignment was important or fun to do. The motivational information might therefore have been interpreted differently by the students than we intended, and was maybe not powerful enough to make any difference (i.e., in the case of intrinsic information). Furthermore, a mismatch between student and environment could explain our results. In general, adolescent students are more extrinsically oriented and might have doubted the intrinsic information. Also, we did not find significant differences between the groups on the intrinsic information manipulation check. This implies that the written statements that supplied intrinsic motivational information were not perceived as such and might not have had the impact that was intended. This might explain why the results for students in the intrinsic groups were not statistically different from students in the control groups. So, a challenge for motivation researchers is to design their interventions in such a way that students understand the interventions the way they are intended.

Study Limitations. The limitations of the study should be considered when using the results for programmatic decision- making and comparisons across hospitals. All surveys were conducted in English, and when needed, an interpreter was used. The language barrier may have affected the responses we received either through misunderstanding of the finer points of the questions by staff and patients, misinterpretations of the questions by the interpreters, or the researcher‟s misunderstanding of what the interpreters were conveying to us. The sustainability metric rated each hospital on a range of situations, ranging from ideal to dire under each subdomain. This rating system assumed that the ideal situations would be similarly perceived at each hospital regardless of existing organizational or hierarchical structures. For future assessments, the sustainability metric should be adjusted to consider existing organizational structures within each hospital. For example, because of existing hierarchical structures, the maintenance staff may not have frequent and easy access to hospital directors. Thus, the sustainability rating of successful communication between maintenance staff and directors should be adjusted to reflect established communication practices within the hospital. In addition, some broad questions in the tool should be re-evaluated for their relevance to the sustainability of the water treatment system in the context of the beneficiary hospitals. Another limitation of the study is the sample size. Only six hospitals received the GEF- donated DMFS. Although we believe the number of surveys administered with staff, patients and visitors were sufficient to get an accurate picture of beliefs and practices at each hospital, no power calculations were conducted. Surveys for maintenance staff were limited in terms of what types of analyses could be performed to assess predictors of issues affecting routine maintenance tasks, and their effects on water quality, and the long-term sustainability of the water treatment systems. Lastly, the researchers did not return to each site for a second round of visits to follow-up on unresolved issues at the site. Therefore, any adjustments or improvements made after the visit of the researchers could not be taken into consideration when evaluating each hospital‟s capacity to troubleshoot and resolve problems with the system.

Study Limitations. The lack of cooperation between patients and their family mem- bers to participate in the research project was among the limita- tions of this study.

Study Limitations. This Report describes the results of ENSR's due diligence investigation to identify the presence of significant environmental liabilities materially affecting the subject facilities and/or properties. In the conduct of this due diligence investigation, ENSR has attempted to independently assess the presence of such problems within the limits of the established scope of work as described in our letter proposals dated July 19, 1996. As with any due diligence evaluation, there is a certain degree of dependence upon oral information provided by facility or site representatives which is not readily verifiable through visual inspection or supported by any available written documentation. ENSR shall not be held responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Limitations. ‌ This study has several limitations. First, the sample size is small (n=12) in comparison to similar proxy studies (e.g., n=30 and n=50), which makes it difficult to generalize these findings to all IWA and their caregivers. Further, the small sample size limits our ability to explore additional variables that may influence findings, such as age post onset or aphasia severity. Second, there was a large range of time post onset (7-209 months), whereas similar studies have only included IWA at least 12 months post-onset. Time post onset may influence results in proxy studies as dyads with greater time post onset have more experience and exposure to the symptoms of aphasia (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2007). Third, the MS was not normed for IWA, but was used as it was the best option available. Most participants demonstrated comprehension of all questions when first presented verbally and visually. For those that demonstrated difficulty the Communicative Support Hierarchy and Independence Rating Scale (▇▇▇▇▇▇, et al., 2012) was done to improve their understanding. Finally, in the current study caregivers were given the mPSS rather than the PSS. The mPSS was specifically created for IWA, whereas the PSS was normed on the general population in the United States. We choose to give the mPSS to the caregivers to maintain consistencies in the language used across the dyads. However, due to the difference in language in the mPSS, the caregivers perceived stress cannot be accurately compared to past studies that have used the PSS.

Study Limitations. This study interviewed women aged 20-40 in urban areas. Therefore, the perceptions of women outside that age range were not identified, thereby limiting the study results only to urban women. In addition, the study did not include men.