Measurement Instruments. The measurement instruments used in the study consisted of a collection of questionnaires, which were used to collect data to address the research aims of the study. This section describes each questionnaire. Demographic Questionnaire A demographic questionnaire was compiled by the principal investigator to collect demographic information from each subject inclusive of the socio-demographic variables utilized in the study. The questionnaire measured demographic information such as age, race, education, combined household income, living arrangements, employment, stage of disease at diagnosis, type of health insurance, and usual transportation to appointments. Xxxx, age, and date of birth were self-reported variables. A copy of the demographic questionnaire is included in Appendix X. Xxxxxxx’x Social Support Questionnaire (NSSQ) The Xxxxxxx’x Social Support Questionnaire (NSSQ) (Xxxxxxx et al., 1981) was utilized to measure the perceived social support of the participants. This instrument measures the types (affect, affirmation, and aid) and sources of social support through a 6-item and 3-situation specific item questionnaire using a 5-point rating scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal). The questionnaire asks each respondent to list the first names or initials of those she considers a part of her support system. The respondent is then asked to answer nine questions regarding functional properties (e.g. emotional and tangible support, stability of relationship, and frequency of contact) for each of the listed support network members. Because the NSSQ is not a summative-type instrument, Xxxxxxx correlations among the items and subscales were calculated to test internal consistency reliability (Xxxxxxx et al., 1981). Each of the two items for each subscale was highly correlated: Affect, .97; Affirmation, .96; and Aid, .89. The test-retest correlations were Affect, .89; Affirmation, .88; and Aid, .86. Validity of the NSSQ was tested in relation to concurrent and construct validity, and the response bias of social desirability, which was ruled out (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxx, 1983). Concurrent validity was tested with the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ), developed by Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx (Xxxxx & Xxxxxxx, 1977). The affirmation and affect scale of the NSSQ was moderately associated with the SSQ measure of informational support (r=.33) and emotional support (r=.51), respectively (Xxxxxxx et al., 1983). Construct validity was assessed using the Fundament...
Measurement Instruments. 3.8.1 Steam Monitor Instruments. Haverhill has installed, at its cost, (i) two (2) meters to measure Steam flow at the existing pressure transmitters located as shown on Exhibit A, on the west side of the Sunoco boiler area steam header (each, a “Steam Flow Meter” and collectively, the “Steam Flow Meters”) and (ii) an instrument to measure Steam pressure located near the Steam Flow Meters (the “Steam Pressure Instrument”) and (ii) an instrument to measure Steam temperature each located near the Steam Flow Meters (the “Steam Temperature Instrument”). The Steam Flow Meters shall continuously measure the flow of Steam delivered from the Coke Plant (Phase I) to the Chemical Plant. The Steam Pressure Instrument and the Steam Temperature Instrument shall continuously measure the pressure and temperature of Steam delivered from the Coke Plant (Phase I) to the Chemical Plant. The Steam Flow Meters shall be calibrated to measure steam flow to an accuracy of not less than plus or minus two percent (+/- 2%). The Steam Pressure Instrument shall be calibrated to measure steam pressure to an accuracy of not less than plus or minus one percent (+/- 1%). The Steam Temperature Instruments shall be calibrated to measure steam temperature to an accuracy of not less than plus or minus five degrees Xxxxxxxxxx (+/- 0x X.). The Parties acknowledge that Haverhill has installed the required Steam Monitor Instruments.
Measurement Instruments. Basic sociodemographic data including age, gender, marital sta- tus, and educational level were collected from all participants. To measure religious characteristics, patients were asked how important religion was to them in their daily lives (religious salience), whether they regarded themselves as member of a Christian church or a religious or spiritual group, and how often they visited church. Also, patients completed the Images of God Scale, a Dutch 14-item instrument that has been used, among others, in a representative national survey (n = 1008) on socio- cultural developments in the Netherlands.18Y20 It assesses adherence to a personal image of God (eg, ‘‘God knows and understands me’’), a nonpersonal image of God (eg, ‘‘There is Something that unifies man and world in their very roots’’), and an unknowable image of God (eg, ‘‘God [Someone or Some- thing] surpasses our powers of imagination’’) (cf. Table 1 for an English translation).21 The internal consistency (Cronbach a) of the scales of images of God was .98 for a personal image of God, .93 for a nonpersonal image of God, and .81 for an unknowable image of God. Images of God were scored from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (fully agree).22 To measure guilt, we used the Dutch Guilt Measurement Instrument developed by Xxxxxxx-Rath12 for patients who were in the middle of a suicide crisis. Although the situation of pa- tients in a suicide crisis may be quite different from patients confronted with cancer, the common denominator in these 2 patient populations is that they are both confronted with a radical, existential life event. To accommodate potential differ- ences between the 2 groups, we have performed a new factor analysis on the original items of the instrument (free factor analysis, Oblimin rotation, communality Q0.2, factor loading Q0.4). Two different attitudes of guilt were distinguished: a re- ligious attitude and a nonreligious attitude (cumulative ex- plained variance 70.3%). The religious attitude referred to guilt as guilt toward God (Cronbach a = .98), whereas the non- religious attitude referred to guilt toward oneself or others (Cronbach a = .86). In the data set of Xxxxxxx-Xxxx, both the religious and nonreligious attitudes could be further differ- entiated into intrapersonal and interpersonal attitudes of guilt. However, we could not replicate these more fine-grained dif- ferentiations for our patient population, and these were there- fore not used in the present study. Each attitude...
Measurement Instruments. As a first assumption, one can consider that the main reason to preserve data is to preserve its value, as an asset. Consequently, it does not make sense to preserve valueless data. However, to determine and assess the value of data is a difficult and error-prone task. On the other hand, it could be an error to consider that data that cannot be used today will have no value in the future. For instance, today’s technology allows the simulation of mathematical models with a much higher resolution and volume of simulated data that was not possible a decade ago. From this perspective, we assume that the preservation of data concerning the safety of large civil engineering structures is crucial, since: • observational data is unique and impossible to recreate • complies with legal requirements or contracts established with third-parties • allows the re-use of data for new research • reduces costs (e.g., the retention of expensively generated data is cheaper to maintain than to re-generate) [4].
Measurement Instruments
