. 2016 Aug 4;18(8):e216. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5598

Table 5.

Result for ROC comparisons of subsamples by adherence level (null hypothesis: χ²test, AUCs of higher and lower adherence groups are the same).

Layers	Adherence (n=number of observations)	Ratio approach		Average approach		Frequency approach
Layers	Adherence (n=number of observations)	AUC	P	AUC	P	AUC	P
Composite construct^a	Lower (n=208)	0.7234	.002	0.7016	.001	0.6664	<.001
Composite construct^a	Higher (n=289)	0.8524	.002	0.8425	.001	0.8259	<.001
Prior method^b	Lower (n=138)	0.7594	.269	0.7290	.104	0.6588	.002
Prior method^b	Higher (n=359)	0.8113	.269	0.8076	.104	0.8198	.002

^aAdherence is clustered based on composite constructs of three factors: Activeness, timeliness, and persistence.

^bAdherence is clustered based on the response rate during 2 weeks.