## What is/are Groups Comparison?

Groups Comparison - Between-groups comparisons showed better effects on all analyzed variables for COD-12.^{[1]}Exploratory factor analysis, Pearson’s correlation, known-groups comparison, and Cronbach’s alpha were used for analysis.

^{[2]}The intragroups comparisons were applied: paired t-test, ANOVA followed by Tukey, Wilcoxon test, and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn test.

^{[3]}Between-groups comparisons showed significantly greater improvements in pain, function and PPT in the Ex+DN group (P<0.

^{[4]}In this study, which has pre-test and post-test control group design, the assessments were made with between-groups and within-groups comparisons.

^{[5]}Statistics were performed using StatView software for descriptive analysis and χ for the sub-groups comparisons.

^{[6]}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.

^{[7]}Participants were grouped as “met” or “not met” based on minimal clinically important changes and between groups comparisons conducted.

^{[8]}Between-groups comparisons were also done according to the MRI grading.

^{[9]}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.

^{[10]}In the between-groups comparison, significant difference in muscle strength was found at RPF30°, LPF30°, LDF30°, RDF90°, LPF90°, and LDF90° (p<0.

^{[11]}Results: Between-groups comparisons of the static and stabilometry podobarometric data with eyes open showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.

^{[12]}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.

^{[13]}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.

^{[14]}Groups comparison were significant, showing high effects in mostly cases.

^{[15]}Independent t-tests were used for between-groups comparisons and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to investigate the association between the outcomes.

^{[16]}Spearman's correlations and known‐groups comparisons supported construct validity.

^{[17]}Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA for within and between groups comparison, respectively, using SPSS version 10.

^{[18]}Within-group and between groups comparison were analyzed using ANOVA, and Scheffes’ posthoc tests by using SPSS 21.

^{[19]}Results The onset time for sensory and motor blocks in intergroups comparisons showed nonsignificant difference between groups II and III.

^{[20]}Validity was assessed using both exploratory and confirmatory factors analysis, known-groups comparison (abused and non-abused elderly) also was administered.

^{[21]}Other useful demographics for further studies were also collected for future subgroups comparisons.

^{[22]}Statistical Analysis: Univariate analysis and analysis of variance for between-groups comparison.

^{[23]}Therefore, the article’s between groups comparisons are valid; however, their metric results do not represent true bone biomechanical parameters.

^{[24]}0, groups comparison was done with X2, survival was analyzed with Kaplan-meier method and comparison among groups with log-rank.

^{[25]}The authors performed a principal component analysis and investigated internal consistency, construct validity, inter-rater reliability, known-groups comparisons and floor and ceiling effects.

^{[26]}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.

^{[27]}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).

^{[28]}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).

^{[29]}Importantly, the recently identified factors that could be disrupting the between groups comparisons were controlled for, and both groups were matched.

^{[30]}Three meta-analyses across three sub-groups comparisons were performed.

^{[31]}Construct validation included known-groups comparisons, associations with psychological distress, and convergence with existing discrimination measures.

^{[32]}Forty-five of the 53 known-groups comparisons were significantly different and were used for calculating the RV.

^{[33]}

## 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]}