Sample Size Sample Clauses

Sample Size. 10.5.1 The number of passengers interviewed during each Fare Evasion Survey will be sufficient to ensure that the overall Fare Evasion Rate for bus services, calculated from each Fare Evasion Survey, shall have an overall sample error of less than 1%.

Sample Size. As this is an extension study, no formal sample size analysis was performed for this study. Study data will be tabulated and summarized.

Sample Size. For each of the locations, the sample size was determined at 5% level of precision (also called desired margin of error), 95% confidence level and 50% population proportion of response to key study indicators. The choice of population response proportion is arbitrary; but this is what is assumed to generate the largest possible sample in the absence of a prior knowledge about population response to key study indicators. The sample size was not adjusted for non- response factor. Like in many surveys, non-response of the sampling unit (here household) has been tackled by substituting original sample unit by another.

Sample Size. The sample size depended upon when theoretical saturation is reached and was estimated to range from 20 to 30 participants for service providers group and 20 to 30 for ‘people with mental illness and their primary caregivers’ group’ This included both men and women. Where possible, equal numbers of men and women were recruited with participants representing all adult age ranges (age 18 years and above). A total of 32 in-depth interviews were conducted: 10 with people with mental illness, 6 with caregivers and 16 with service providers. We conducted one focus group discussion (FGD) with service users and their caregivers. There were sixteen participants in the FGD. The participants in the FGD included six service users and ten caregivers.

Sample Size. The number of units or services to be checked/monitored in a given time period.

Sample Size. The primary outcome for the interrater agreement analysis was the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the AHI. Given nine sleep scorers (one at each site), the 15 PSGs had a power of 83% to detect an ICC of at least 0.90, assuming a null hypothesis of ICC = 0.70. The interrater reliability measures used to examine the agreement among the nine different scorers were the ICC for continuous variables (respiratory indices, duration of sleep stages, and arousal index) and the kappa (κ) statistic for mul- tiple raters for the categorical variables (sleep stages). The levels of agreement using the ICCs of respiratory indices, dura- tion of sleep stages, and arousal index were classified as fol- lows: 0.00-0.25 = little, 0.26-0.49 = low, 0.50-0.69 = moderate, AHI (events/h) 25.8 ± 19.4 22.7 ± 18.4 25.7 ± 19.0 25.9 ± 19.8 24.3 ± 17.2 22.7 ± 17.4 23.0 ± 15.4 25.9 ± 21.3 23.6 ± 18.1 0.95 0.91-0.98 Total Apneas 54.1 ± 71.9 31.6 ± 68.2 45.3 ± 66.5 46.3 ± 63.9 42.3 ± 60.3 20.3 ± 41.8 58.1 ± 78.3 104.6 ± 127.7 51.1 ± 72.4 0.73 0.55-0.88 Obstructive 44.1 ± 61.3 28.7 ± 68.2 39.5 ± 67.1 35.9 ± 55.2 37.5 ± 57.1 17.7 ± 36.7 56.4 ± 76.6 100.7 ± 127.7 42.2 ± 68.9 0.70 0.51-0.86 Central 6.7 ± 9.1 2.9 ± 7.1 4.4 ± 7.8 7.3 ± 10.2 1.0 ± 2.0 0.9 ± 1.4 0.9 ± 1.9 3.3 ± 6.2 6.7 ± 7.8 0.46 0.27-0.70 Mixed 3.3 ± 9.5 0.1 ± 0.3 1.5 ± 3.0 3.1 ± 7.5 4.0 ± 7.5 1.7 ± 5.4 0.8 ± 2.3 0.6 ± 1.2 2.2 ± 5.6 0.42 0.24-0.67 Hypopneas 90.1 ± 76.6 100.7 ± 85.7 109.1 ± 85.4 94.8 ± 73.8 108.2 ± 79.4 109.2 ± 87.4 81.1 ± 58.1 51.0 ± 36.9 86.5 ± 75.1 0.80 0.65-0.91 ODI (events/h) 22.4 ± 17.6 22.0 ± 17.5 24.6 ± 18.3 21.6 ± 17.0 25.3 ± 17.5 22.4 ± 18.0 19.7 ± 14.2 22.9 ± 17.4 20.9 ± 16.6 0.97 0.93-0.99 AHI, apnea-hypopnea index; CI, confidence interval; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; ODI, oxygen desaturation index. Downloaded from ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/sleep/article/36/4/591/2595972 by guest on 02 October 2020 κ 0.78 0.77 0.78 0.78 95% CI 0.77-0.79 0.76-0.78 0.77-0.79 0.77-0.78 CI, confidence interval; NREM, nonrapid eye movement; REM, rapid eye movement. κ 0.78 0.31 0.60 0.67 0.78 0.63 95% CI 0.77-0.79 0.30-0.32 0.59-0.61 0.65-0.69 0.77-0.79 0.62-0.63 CI, confidence interval; NREM, nonrapid eye movement. 0.70-0.89 = strong, 0.90-1.00 = very strong.6-8 For the κ sta- tistic for multiple raters, the levels of agreement were classi- fied as follows: < 0 = no agreement, 0-0.20 = slight agreement, 0.21-0.40 = fair agreement, 0.41-0.60 = moderate agreement, 0.61-0.80 = substantial agreement, 0.81...

Sample Size. Primary endpoint is confirmed ▇▇▇ per Investigator assessment. A sample size of 105 efficacy evaluable patients achieves 91% power to detect a difference in ▇▇▇ of 12% (24% vs. 12%) using a 1-sided binomial test. The target significance level (1-sided α level) is 0.025. The actual significance level achieved by this test is 0.0242. These results assume that the ▇▇▇ is 12% under the null hypothesis and 24-% under the alternative hypothesis. Patients who have received at least 1 dose of MIRV but are not efficacy evaluable will be included in Safety Analysis Population. However, these patients will not be included in the Efficacy Evaluable Population and will be replaced for the purpose of sample size determination. A total of approximately 110 patients will be enrolled to achieve 105 efficacy evaluable patients.

Sample Size. The original design of the study included 36 In-Depth Interviews (IDIs), However, a total of 44 interviews were conducted as new themes continued to emerge during data collection, and code saturation (Hennink, 2017) had not yet been reached. IDIs were divided equally between women and men, with participants and their husbands in the intervention arm accounting for 24 of the 44 total interviews. A total of twelve FGDs were conducted, divided equally between women and men in intervention and control arms of the study. The number of FGDs was based on recommendations to conduct at least two focus groups per stratum to identify meaning saturation (Hennink, 2019), with the strata in this study being gender and study arm. Details on the sampling structure are given in Table 1 below.

Sample Size. For the staff survey, we did attempt to interview all staff members in rural dispensaries and health centers and all outpatient staff in rural hospitals. Our target sample size for the clinic client survey was based on assumptions of Clorin utilization of 5% at baseline and an increase in use to 10% at follow-up. In this evaluation our target groups were pregnant mothers or mothers of children less than 5 years old at each health facility. Interview of the father or grandmother for example was permitted if they were the primary caretaker of the child. We consecutively invited the clients to participate in the evaluation if they were a resident of the catchment area and within 10 km of the selected facility.