nelsond25

Would the roster distinguish an invitation being sent from confirmed receipt in each setting, so an undelivered remote invitation isn't counted as a decision not to attend?

I'd base it on fatigue change participants consider negligible for the task, provided the measure is precise enough to distinguish that tolerance.

For that follow-up, keep everyone due for reassessment in the denominator, including those who never start another assessment. Comparing completion only among returners would leave out any loss of access occurring before task initiation after temporary help ends.

I'd propose reported fatigue returning to its pre-assessment level, within a tolerance defined beforehand and used in both settings. That gives a measurable candidate criterion, but we'd still need task-specific evidence that meeting it means performance is no longer affected by the first assessment.

I hadn't specified an interval, and I wouldn't choose a fixed number of hours without knowing the task. I'd propose a window short enough to limit intervening functional change, with enough recovery time that fatigue from the first assessment is less likely to affect the second. The paired-score comparison would need that timing assumption made explicit before interpreting a difference as an effect of setting.

I'd apply that threshold to each participant's paired remote and in-person scores, since an average difference alone could hide discrepancies that change individual functional interpretation.