Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14752678 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>In the three histograms representing the CMS distribution from Session 1 for the<br>experimental group, control group, and all participants combined, we can see how similar<br>participants scored for CMS in Session 1. In the first histogram, the distribution for the<br>experimental group is centered around a CMS score of 70, with frequency decreasing as scores<br>move away from this central value. This suggests that most participants in the experimental group<br>had scores around this median, with fewer individuals reporting higher or lower scores. The second<br>histogram for the control group shows a more even distribution of CMS scores, with frequencies<br>being relatively similar in the range from 60 to 100. There is no clear central peak as seen in the<br>experimental group, which could imply a response more varied to whatever is measured or<br>controlled within this group. However, such differences are natural and considered when referring<br>to CMS scores. The third histogram combines data from both the experimental and control groups,<br>showing the overall distribution of CMS scores for all participants. This distribution takes a more<br>normal shape with a clear central peak around 70-80 CMS, suggesting that when both groups are<br>combined there is a trend towards average scores in this range. In essence, we can infer that in terms<br>of CMS testing, the participants of the two groups are close to being part of the same larger group<br>of participants, which means that they have homogeneously isomorphic dispersions of the CMS test<br>result.</p>