欲討論之事項(1/3)

討論SF-36審稿者意見，針對Reviewer 2 introduction (2)
1. 總結convergent validity和divergent validity結果之方式適當嗎?
    句子為"The results of construct validity showed sufficient convergent validity of the 8 scales of the SF-36 and somewhat unsatisfactory divergent validity of the 4 scales (i.e., the PF, RP, MH, and RE scales)."
   我會使用somewhat unsatisfactory的描述是參考以下二篇文獻：
(1) Solheim, E., Berg-Nielsen, T. S., & Wichstrom, L. (2011). The three dimensions of the student-teacher relationship scale: CFA validation in a preschool sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
  此篇文獻作者寫到"The discriminant validity of the dependency versus the conflict subscale was somewhat unsatisfactory, mainly due to imperfections in the dependency subscale."
(2) Choi, S. J., Chung, C. Y., Lee, K. M., Kwon, D. G., Lee, S. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). Validity of gait parameters for hip flexor constracture in patients with cerebral palsy. Jounral of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 8.
  此篇文獻作者寫到"showed an unsatisfactory discriminant validity"

2. 我在方法部分加寫，原本SF-36的分數計算中，8個scales裡有4個scales計算physical component summary之分數，另4個scales計算mental component summary分數，因此我才會在內文中，有看似為2-factor model的假設。不知這樣加註後，思考邏輯是否較完整?

3. 不是很懂老師所建議"重點在於未驗證convergent 或divergent validity，而非assumption"?
    不是在做convergent/divergent validity時，要先提出假設嗎?

4. 在divergent validity之假設，不知此寫法是否有連貫?
    我把為何其它scales不驗證divergent validity之理由，放在table下註解。

5. 我有修改結論部分，不知construct validity的結論寫法適當嗎?