FDT論文修改重點

根據Brain injury期刊審稿者之意見，以下為針對意見所思考FDT論文會修改方向和重點

1. The readability of the manuscript is poor as noted above and would be improved by close attention to improving the use of appropriate tenses, spelling, singular v plural and conventions with respect to how numbers are written. These issues make the manuscript difficult to read and at times confusing.
回覆重點：與Lynn討論寫作文法方面的問題，以確定需要修改那些句子的時態、拼字 (如須寫practice effect，非practise effect)、單複數、數字撰寫的規則 (10以下須寫英國字母，10以上須寫阿拉伯數字)。

2. The structure of the MS also requires attention. For example under methods, the participant section does not include information about the numbers of participants--information that is later uncovered under results. A box diagram depicting the total number to start with and who was excluded for what reason would avoid the need to describe this in the text. Under procedures, a table with the measures that were administered at each time point would be helpful. The results section is unnecessarily wordy and attention could rather be drawn to the main findings.
回覆重點：
(1) 使用圖示法解釋獲得最後分析資料的流程
(2) 在procedure部分，使用表格表示在每個時間點使用那些評估工具。
(3) 在結果部分，精簡文字且刪除不必要的字句。另外使用次標題顯示重點。

3. The introduction lacks important information about the Five Digit Test (FDT) with respect to other studies of reliability or validity, including studies on other populations. This is particularly important given that the FDT is likely to be unfamiliar to many readers. Information about practice effects on other tests in stroke populations would also be important, particularly on a reportedly similar measure such as the Stroop
回覆重點：
(1) 在前言部分，須提供FDT在其他族群的信效度結果，然而我所找到的資料都是未發表在期刊上，所找到的FDT信效度資料不是來自博士論文，就是FDT工具發展作者所提供的相關海報資料。適合使用博士論文和海報資料嗎?
   我的想法是，因為FDT為新的工具，一般人對FDT不熟悉。即使相關信效度資料未發表於期刊上，仍須提供。
(2) 會加入其它注意力和執行功能評估工具應用於中風患者之練習效應結果。
   目前仍未找到Stroop Color Word Test (SCWT)於中風患者之練習效應驗證資料，所以需要提嗎?
   我的想法是，回覆審稿者說就以我們所知，尚未有研究驗證SCWT於中風患者之練習效應。在FDT論文中不提SCWT於中風患者之練習效應相關研究。

4. Concepts such as practice effects and test-reliability are poorly explained and inclusion of reliable change indices appears unjustified, particularly given the small N.
回覆重點：
(1) 會檢試前言和討論部分之practice effect和test-retest reliability的解釋。
(2) 於研究限制部分，我會補充本研究sample size小，對RCI的解釋須保留。

5. The participants should be better described in terms of a table of their scores (mean, SD, range) on the other measures (BI, READ, CMD, Star cancellation); it is unclear why these were not included.
回覆重點：原文已在個案基本資料表上提供BI之分數，會在表格上提供READ, CMD, Star cancellation的測量分數。

6. The statistical analysis makes no correction for multiple testing. The overall N is small for the analyses performed.
回覆重點：
(1) 在決定plateau phase的判斷標準中，使用paired t-test，而未使用ANOVA。原因為決定plateau phase的判斷標準中，為檢驗看到一個時間點分別與接下來的二個時間點之間平均分數的是否有差異 (二二比較)，而非同時一起驗證多個時間點，所以不須校正typer I error。
(2) 於研究限制部分，我會補充本研究sample size小，所以paired t-test可能會不顯著。

7. In results, the mean raw scores should be presented first. The graphs are potentially useful for depicting this but the values on the Y axis for some measures do not appear to match those provided in the table! For example for basic attention/processing speed the mean in the table is 75, whereas in Figure 1 it's around 140. In table II, it is inappropriate to have a column headed practice effect when there is no practice effect. This column appears to be redundant.
回覆重點：
(1) 會提前提到mean raw score且把表3 (mean raw score數值表)變成表2。
(2) 會重新畫練習效應趨勢圖，以符合mean raw score之數值。
(3) 會刪除表2之head practice effect欄位。