待解決之問題 (2) for MDC值

經由分析，兩次評量分數的平均值與兩次評量分數差異的絕對值相關係數大致上都大於0.3，顯示資料呈現heterosecedasticity的現象，MDC值可能無法適用於樣本中的每一個案。

待解決之問題 (1) for MDC % (已修改)

MDC % = (MDC/the possible highest scores of measurement) x100

MDC % for actual performance = (3.25/20) x 100 = 16.3%  acceptable

MDC % for self-perceived difficulty = (6.49/20) x100 = 32.5 %

MDC % for ability = (2.19/18) x 100 = 12.2 % acceptable

* MDC%<30% : acceptable ; MDC% <10% : excellent
* MDC%越小，表示評估工具評估物差越低

Bland-Altman Plots for the 3-aspect BI test-retest reliability

In Figs 1-3 the differences of scores are plotted against mean scores of the 2 sessions(1). The limits of agreements (LOAs) of the 3 aspects ranged from -3.7 to 2.9 for actual performance, -7.5 to 5.0 for self-perceived difficulty, and -2.3 to 1.7 for ability.

Reference:
1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307–310.

Test-retest reliability/MDC of the 3-aspect BI

Table 2 Test-retest reliability indices of the 3-aspect BI (n=40)

Aspect	First test Mean (SD)	Second test Mean (SD)	Difference Mean (SD)	ICC (95% CI)	SEM	MDC
Actual Performance	16.7 (4.1)	17.1 (4.2)	-0.4 (1.7)	0.92 (0.85-0.96)	1.2	3.3
Self-perceived difficulty	15.0 (4.9)	16.2 (4.1)	-1.3 (3.2)	0.73 (0.52-0.85)	2.3	6.5
Ability	15.3 (4.1)	15.6 (3.8)	-0.3 (1.1)	0.91 (0.83-0.96)	0.8	2.2

3-aspect BI 信度論文撰寫預定進度

主要任務	預定完成日
1. 仁愛資料key in	9/13
2. 研究方法修改	9/13
3. 資料分析	9/15
4. 結果撰寫	9/19
5. 摘要撰寫	9/20
6. 前言撰寫	9/21
7. 討論撰寫	9/23