Credibility Clause Samples

Credibility. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ dictionary (2015) defines Credibility as “the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest”. Credibility is important to any agreement dependent on several actors, and is fundamental to this study of the EGA initiative. Authors ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2011), offer suggestions on how leaders can increase the trust and confidence people have in them. To trust in the people who lead is necessary for people to follow. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ describe a slide of confidence in all aspects of society related to the beginning of the financial crisis in 2007. Regular people were angered by “the fact that once-powerful organizations were given government bailouts while at the same time

Credibility. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2012, p. 139) defines credibility as methodological procedures and sources used to establish a high level of harmony between the participants’ expressions and the researcher’s interpretations of them. To achieve this member checks were done by taking the transcripts back to the interviewees to check if what has been constructed from the data is in fact what they said and correct any interpretation errors that might have occurred. Another way is to take enough time with the interviewees to get the right information needed. Thereafter, colleagues and support networks that are knowledgeable in Fintech can review and critique the research and provide inputs (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012, p. 139)

Credibility. Credibility means that interpretations are based on multiple sources (triangulation) and/or the respondent confirms the interpretation of the researcher.

Credibility. Medical personnel have an advantage on other types of source in the IR fields, because our cultures assign high recognition to the competence of doctors. It should be part of the year- round work of official sources to establish, through concrete demonstrations and displays, that they are competent in the knowledge of their field – but this must be tempered also by the relational aspects of communication. Doctors successfully obtain the recognition of their high scientific competence in the context of listening to the patients’ complaint and providing a workable solution or cure. For other sources, this situation might be reproduced by outreach to the persons affected by the application of IR. For these official sources, the demonstrations of their competence, and their ability to provide solutions, should be achieved in contexts of partnering with communities or civil society to solve issues that matter to those people. - when the source of information about IR risk has a recognized competence, and - when it can also point to positive achievements and successful judgments in areas that really matter to individuals. It means expressing the information in a way that takes into account the center of concern as defined by the people. - when the source is someone you know and who, you feel, is part of your community or attuned to its concerns. A doctor is indeed a respected, wise member of the community and perceived as having people’s best interest at heart. Source institution officials cannot impose themselves in the community but they can work over time to earn such positive visibility and to learn about the interests and concerns of the people, which they can support and respect. - when the source of information is arrogant, creating a sense of distance measured between his expertise and the listener’s ability to grasp the facts, and - when the source considers that technical expertise in a particular subject constitutes expertise also in communication. In fact, sources lose in credibility when they fail to deliver their message in an understandable, appropriate way. - when the source stays in a centralized location and never ventures out to dialogue and learn, humbly, what are the needs and concerns of affected persons and communities.

Credibility. A measure of the statistical predictability of a group’s experience. A manual which assigns five-digit codes to medical services and procedures to standardized claims processing and data analysis.

Credibility. Credibility is concerned with the confidence in the truth of the data and interpretations of them (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇, 1985; ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇, 2008). In this study, the techniques utilised to ensure the credibility of the findings and interpretations included prolonged engagement and triangulation. - Prolonged engagement Spending sufficient time in the context helps the researcher develop an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study, which ultimately enhances the validity of the research by making the findings and interpretations more credible and accurate (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2009; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇, 1985). In this study, I spent more than two months in the field and I was present in the school almost four times a week, not just for the data collection but also to speak to the teachers and students, and to be become familiar with the specific school environment. This allowed me to build a trusting relationship and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ a rapport with these people, as well as understand the social and emotional climate of the case classroom.

Credibility. The claimant has proved to be a witness whose acquaintance with the truth is sometimes fleeting, she has been seen on occasion to be an untruthful and wholly unreliable witness, and wherever there is a dispute of fact, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ invites the Tribunal to find that the Respondent’s evidence should be preferred unless there is otherwise objective evidence to support the claimant’s account. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples demonstrating C’s unreliability.

Credibility. In Nevada, the only way to earn credibility is through hard, honest work. Our staff is among the most respected public policy professionals in the State. We’ve built our reputation on our experience and the successes we’ve achieved with our clients, not by seeking publicity and fanfare for ourselves. Teamwork. Each member of the Carrara Nevada team is available to meet the needs of our clients. Our statewide presence enables us to combine unwavering personal attention with the diverse talents of our entire firm. The Carrara Nevada lobbying team will consist of ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, President and CEO of the firm, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Vice President of the company who is well versed in local government issues. In addition, we will use the combined talents of the rest of our staff in developing strategy and meeting the needs of the City outside the halls of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ City. Outlined below are the backgrounds of the lobbying team members who will be working as part of the legislative team in ▇▇▇▇▇▇ City. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ has served on the Board of Directors for the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) and the Board of the Southern Nevada American Lung Association. ▇▇▇▇▇ comes to the company after serving one legislative session as a policy analyst for the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) where she was actively involved in local government issues ranging from affordable housing to taxation. Prior to that, she worked for the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Strategic Group where she serviced a number of clients on behalf of the company’s principal during the 2003 legislative session. ▇▇▇▇▇ brings a local government perspective to our client base and a fundamental understanding of issue development. Her knowledge of the players and her understanding of the legislative process provides our firms clients with an additional layer of protection. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ has served on a number of public and private groups, including NDOT Statewide Transportation TAC, Southern Nevada Lands Management Act, Public Lands Steering Group and the Washoe County Meth Community Response Working Group, to name a few. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ is a graduate of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the University of Nevada Reno. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is a legislative team specialist based in Southern Nevada specializing in private property and tax policy. His diverse background in public policy and political management provide our clients with critical insight and analysis in issue development and strategic planning. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is an Iraq war veteran an...

Credibility. Results of the LCA analysis need to be understood considering the context. The method itself does not include triangulation of sources but the method and results can be explained to stakeholders to enable them to give feedback. This can increase the credibility of the results.