English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

“Model II comprising negative, positive and risk factors provided a fairly good fit. In Model III, omitting items 6 and 22 from the risk factor resulted in a slightly poorer fit. Model IV, in which five items were deleted and four moved from the negative factor to the risk factor was a comparable fit to Model II. Model V, the two factor structure recommended by Skre et al. ([33] Reference [2] here) yielded a reasonable fit. In model VI, omitting items 6 and 22 from the risk factor resulted in a poorer fit. Model VII, the 28-item, two factor model, was also a worse fit than Model V. Model VIII, the single-factor model including all items, did not meet good fit criteria. Model IX, the shortened 6-item scale, was a mediocre fit, while model X, the 10-item scale, was an acceptable fit to the data. Model II was chosen as the optimal model as it was a good fit to the data and closer to the original questionnaire than Model IV. For all items in Model II, factor loadings were positive, moderately to very high and statistically significant. There was a high degree of positive correlation between all three factors.

health and quality of life outcomes

Erratum to: Confirmatory factor analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-OM) used as a measure of emotional distress in people with tinnitus