before and after rehabilitation

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1

Advertisements

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Intermediate-level learner

Perception of discriminatory organizational relationships

Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education

Figure 3. Comparison of class performance

Table 2. Result of intention to use

Table 3. Number of MS patients/ Year of diagnosis / Current Residence

osteoporosis among the studied working women (n= 365)

SON Nurse Practitioner Blackboard Community

Table 3. Comparison of NS1 Antigen Assay and Platelet Counts

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Regression Statistics

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Source Sum of Squares (SS) df Mean Square (MS) F p-value

Table 2. Demographic data from participants

Management Philosophy

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

student achievement scores

Table 1. The Demographic Characteristics

Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group

Table 2. Levels of youth Involvement in Community Development Programs

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 4. Percentage of post-harvest waste reported by the farmers

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 1. Student’s attitude towards technology (%)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Rating of Water Quality

Table 2. Regression statistics for independent and dependent variables

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Contrast equality of group means

Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio

Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)

Table 1. Diagnostic methods for systemic fungal infection (n=70)

Table 1. Characteristics (age, height, and weight) of the participants

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.

Table 2. Test of Normality

Table 5. Comparison of Outcome of 138 patients

Number of questionnaires sent out

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the study subjects

Std. Error of the Estimate

Behavioral strategies

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Source of variation Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean square

Cumulative Percentage

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Table 3. Correlation of PC, MC, RC & IC at the Supervisory level

chemistry that are involved in peer group

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

reported practices score pre/post intervention

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant

Table 4. Value creation (Y2)

Table 4. Comparison of time-window by emergency gastroscopy

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Compressive Strength difference at 1 week (MPa)

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels

Evaluating questionnaires

© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.

Presentation transcript:

before and after rehabilitation Table 4. The comparison of p-value and correlation of age with variables working memory test in patients with Parkinson before and after rehabilitation Age After rehabilitation Before rehabilitation Correct Response r=0.280 p-value=0.002 r=0.145 p-value=0.114 Error Response r=0.447 p-value=0.000 r=0.135 p-value= 0.142 Correct Time r=0.510 r= 0.093 p-value=0.315 Error Time r=0.361 r= -0.316 p-value= 0.000 Last Level r=0.448 r=0.096 p-value=0.297 Time Record r=0.463 r=-0.061 p-value=0.509 Memory Span Percent r=-0.064 p-value=0.491 Zarghi A et al. Application of Neuro-Cognitive Assessment and Rehabilitation (NCAR) Computerized Test in Working Memory Deficit in Parkinson. American Journal of Educational Research, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2, 155-162. doi:10.12691/ education-4-2-3 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.