## What is/are Groups Comparison?

Groups Comparison - To compare the groups, Mann–Whitney or chi-squared tests were used and within groups comparison was performed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test.^{[1]}Between-groups comparisons showed better effects on all analyzed variables for COD-12.

^{[2]}Exploratory factor analysis, Pearson’s correlation, known-groups comparison, and Cronbach’s alpha were used for analysis.

^{[3]}The intragroups comparisons were applied: paired t-test, ANOVA followed by Tukey, Wilcoxon test, and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn test.

^{[4]}Between-groups comparisons showed significantly greater improvements in pain, function and PPT in the Ex+DN group (P<0.

^{[5]}Between groups comparisons showed that a priming effect occurred only in typical readers.

^{[6]}In this study, which has pre-test and post-test control group design, the assessments were made with between-groups and within-groups comparisons.

^{[7]}Between groups comparisons (% baseline change) revealed significant differences in ALT (p = 0.

^{[8]}Statistics were performed using StatView software for descriptive analysis and χ for the sub-groups comparisons.

^{[9]}To estimate differential expression between different groups of samples, the count data were used in the DESeq2 R package and the 4 patient groups comparisons were performed.

^{[10]}Probably, it should be taken into account that while surgical activity requires the maintenance of a prolonged nearly fixed standing position, a non-surgical medical activity is characterized by a Table 1: Characteristics of the study sample and groups comparisons.

^{[11]}The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, known groups comparison and criterion validity were assessed.

^{[12]}The within-groups comparison indicated a statistically significant difference between the total MDA index with a mean difference of 0.

^{[13]}Participants were grouped as “met” or “not met” based on minimal clinically important changes and between groups comparisons conducted.

^{[14]}Between-groups comparisons were also done according to the MRI grading.

^{[15]}In the post-TBS inter-groups comparison, increased ReHo was seen in right middle occipital gyrus and decreased ReHo in right middle frontal gyrus and right postcentral gyrus (cTBS vs.

^{[16]}In the between-groups comparison, significant difference in muscle strength was found at RPF30°, LPF30°, LDF30°, RDF90°, LPF90°, and LDF90° (p<0.

^{[17]}Results: Between-groups comparisons of the static and stabilometry podobarometric data with eyes open showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.

^{[18]}Between-groups comparison of the neutral trials showed that the high-rate group demonstrated a lower proportion of /a:/ responses, indicating that Talker A’s habitual speech rate sounded slower when B was faster.

^{[19]}Known-groups comparison showed that SF-12v2 summary scores did well in differentiating subgroups of older adults by age, marital status, and self-reported health problems (P≤0.

^{[20]}Between groups comparison provided surprising results as the only significant difference showed higher ME in the recent SCI group.

^{[21]}In the within and between-groups comparisons of the pretest and posttest achievement scores of the experimental and control groups and their retention test scores, two-way variance analysis was used.

^{[22]}Groups comparison were significant, showing high effects in mostly cases.

^{[23]}Independent t-tests were used for between-groups comparisons and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to investigate the association between the outcomes.

^{[24]}Spearman's correlations and known‐groups comparisons supported construct validity.

^{[25]}Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA for within and between groups comparison, respectively, using SPSS version 10.

^{[26]}Between groups comparison for novice versus improver was investigated by Mann-Whitney U tests (p ≤ 0.

^{[27]}Within-group and between groups comparison were analyzed using ANOVA, and Scheffes’ posthoc tests by using SPSS 21.

^{[28]}Results The onset time for sensory and motor blocks in intergroups comparisons showed nonsignificant difference between groups II and III.

^{[29]}Validity was assessed using both exploratory and confirmatory factors analysis, known-groups comparison (abused and non-abused elderly) also was administered.

^{[30]}In a known groups comparison, the SBQ discriminated SAD patients (n = 86) from both nonseasonal major depressive disorder (MDD) patients (n = 30) and healthy controls (n = 110), whereas a generic measure of depressogenic cognitive vulnerability (the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale [DAS]) discriminated MDD patients from the other groups.

^{[31]}Other useful demographics for further studies were also collected for future subgroups comparisons.

^{[32]}1) in group 5 (p-value for across groups comparison = 0.

^{[33]}Statistical Analysis: Univariate analysis and analysis of variance for between-groups comparison.

^{[34]}Therefore, the article’s between groups comparisons are valid; however, their metric results do not represent true bone biomechanical parameters.

^{[35]}Between groups comparisons revealed lower levels of arachidonic acid in children with ADHD and stronger NIRS signal in TD participants, especially when completing more difficult tasks.

^{[36]}0, groups comparison was done with X2, survival was analyzed with Kaplan-meier method and comparison among groups with log-rank.

^{[37]}The authors performed a principal component analysis and investigated internal consistency, construct validity, inter-rater reliability, known-groups comparisons and floor and ceiling effects.

^{[38]}Between-groups comparisons showed that the species richness was strongly correlated between birds and plants, followed by between raptors and birds; correlations between birds and mammals, reptiles and mammals and raptors and plants were weak albeit statistically significant.

^{[39]}Before–after between groups comparison (t-test) was used for statistical analysis of the outcome, with two measurement points (GerdQ), while repeated-measures ANOVA was used for those outcomes with four measurement points (CROM and PPT).

^{[40]}In statistical analyzes, t-tests were used in two groups comparisons, while the effects of other variables on average speed and cardiovascular parameters were determined by two way analyzes of variance.

^{[41]}Between-groups comparisons were performed for vestibular symptoms and provocation scores on the VOMS (smooth pursuit, saccades, convergence, vestibular/ocular reflex, visual motion sensitivity), NPC (average distance), and K-D (time).

^{[42]}Importantly, the recently identified factors that could be disrupting the between groups comparisons were controlled for, and both groups were matched.

^{[43]}Three meta-analyses across three sub-groups comparisons were performed.

^{[44]}Partial least square with formative assessment was employed to test the proposed model and multi‐groups comparison analysis was conducted to examine the moderation effects of cultural difference on influential factors related to students' DIL behaviors.

^{[45]}Response percentages were compared by two-tail proportional z-test for two-sample comparison or Chi-squared test for multiple groups comparison with adjusted p values.

^{[46]}Construct validation included known-groups comparisons, associations with psychological distress, and convergence with existing discrimination measures.

^{[47]}The comparison of normally distributed continuous variables between the two groups was performed using Student’s t test and for more than two groups comparison done through ANOVA test.

^{[48]}The study used standard groups comparison research design.

^{[49]}Forty-five of the 53 known-groups comparisons were significantly different and were used for calculating the RV.

^{[50]}

## Between Groups Comparison

Between groups comparisons showed that a priming effect occurred only in typical readers.^{[1]}Between groups comparisons (% baseline change) revealed significant differences in ALT (p = 0.

^{[2]}Between groups comparison provided surprising results as the only significant difference showed higher ME in the recent SCI group.

^{[3]}Between groups comparison for novice versus improver was investigated by Mann-Whitney U tests (p ≤ 0.

^{[4]}Between groups comparisons revealed lower levels of arachidonic acid in children with ADHD and stronger NIRS signal in TD participants, especially when completing more difficult tasks.

^{[5]}Between groups comparisons demonstrated significant differences in basal HR and post-PPT Tre immediately after outdoor PPT.

^{[6]}Between groups comparison was performed with P < 0.

^{[7]}Between groups comparison did not evidence any significant variation of respiratory parameters across time or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at day-90.

^{[8]}

## Known Groups Comparison

The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, known groups comparison and criterion validity were assessed.^{[1]}In a known groups comparison, the SBQ discriminated SAD patients (n = 86) from both nonseasonal major depressive disorder (MDD) patients (n = 30) and healthy controls (n = 110), whereas a generic measure of depressogenic cognitive vulnerability (the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale [DAS]) discriminated MDD patients from the other groups.

^{[2]}

## Two Groups Comparison

In statistical analyzes, t-tests were used in two groups comparisons, while the effects of other variables on average speed and cardiovascular parameters were determined by two way analyzes of variance.^{[1]}The comparison of normally distributed continuous variables between the two groups was performed using Student’s t test and for more than two groups comparison done through ANOVA test.

^{[2]}