#ryland grace#phm#rocky the eridian#project hail mary spoilers
seen from China
seen from Indonesia
seen from Uruguay
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Dominican Republic
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Australia
a guide to validity in research
would anyone like a run-down of the kinds of validity to worry about in your research?
On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014 Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Journal Founding: August 2, 2012 Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed Access: Electronic/Digital & Open…
On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014 Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Journal Founding: August 2, 2012 Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed Access: Electronic/Digital & Open…
On High-Range Test Construction 1: Antjuan Finch on PDIT & GIQ
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014 Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Journal Founding: August 2, 2012 Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed Access: Electronic/Digital & Open…
sometimes you just want to shake animal model people and ask them HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SINGLE HUMAN BEING IN YOUR LIFE
novel animal model in which male Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to repeated hypoxic brain injury during the equivalent of extreme prematurity were ADHD-like hyperactive/impulsive
Advances in MMJ: MJBizCon Las Vegas 2018
Advances in MMJ: MJBizCon Las Vegas 2018
Congratulation to MJBiz for a successful conference in Las Vegas. The turn-out was astounding.
In the Key Note address, Torsten Keunzlen from SunDial, perfectly captured this time in the growth of MMJ as a legitimate treatment for a host of medical conditions. Paraphrasing, Mr. Keunzlen stated:
The Cannabis Industry is at a turning-point, and we in the industry, have a decision to make in terms…
View On WordPress
Does the “Weeb Ass Shit” Scale Need to Be Broken Down Further? And If So, How?
Those of you who follow me on Facebook already saw me ask something like this, but I thought I’d turn it over to the Tumblr community where other reviewers are also using the Weeb Ass Shit scale, in case they search for the tags to see what other people are saying. Weeb is straightforward: “how accessible is this to a non-Japanese (and especially non-otaku) audience?” Ass is also pretty easy: “how much fanservice-y sexual content is there?”, although I’ve also been using it broadly to also cover sexual humor that isn’t titillating and nudity that isn’t necessarily sexual in context but which audiences may be uncomfortable with. But the Shit scale? There is a huge glaring problem with it: it tries to combine too many things into a single assessment of “quality”. I realized this after reviewing Angelic Layer. There are enough things wrong with it visually that I couldn’t avoid addressing them, and they bothered me enough that I rated the show overall a 5 on Shit. But at the same time, I have only minor complaints about the plot and characters. In terms of sheer story and writing, and even character designs if you look at the moments of very good art like the opening sequence, though, it’s vastly better than the first ever show I reviewed, Blend-S, which I also gave a 5 for completely different reasons. Angelic Layer is a good show made badly, while Blend-S is a bad show made well. They aren’t remotely comparable and rating them the same provides no useful information to the reader of the review. So maybe it would be a service to you, the readers, to break down Shit into “writing” and “art”, or “concept” and “execution” or some similar simple divide that gets to the idea of different things that contribute to “quality”.
On the other hand, though, the reasons for a given rating should be clear if I have done a good job of describing what I watched and the impression it made on me. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make your decision to watch or not watch something purely based on one single summary rating anyway, especially one that is so subjective (I’m glaring at you, people who decide whether to watch movies based on whether they’re “fresh”). All of the judgements here, and Shit especially, are so prone to being tied up with the personal tastes of the reviewer that it varies wildly from person to person. For example, I’m not planning to review Code Geass, which I’ve been watching recently, but if I did, I couldn’t possibly imagine rating it an 8 in any of the categories, especially Shit. Not to mention that sometimes there are a few serious flaws in a show and I (and others) end up loving it anyway, as I’ve said about Full Metal Panic!, whose plot has some notably dumb ideas, especially early on, but which has nevertheless become one of my favorite media franchises of any genre or country of origin.
So my questions, especially for other people who apply this rating scale, are:
Do you think the ratings should be useful on their own as quick summaries? Do you think any of the scales (but especially the Shit scale) should be broken down into smaller scales?
If so, which and why? Message me your thoughts and I’ll take them into consideration for future posts.
RESEARCH VALIDITY
RESEARCH VALIDITY
Validity is one of the important measures of the quality of a study. It refers to the degree to which the results obtained by the study are accurate or truthful. There are four main types of validity: (1) statistical conclusion validity, (2) construct validity, (3) internal validity, and (3) external validity.
Statistical Conclusion Validity
This refers to the degree to which…
View On WordPress
