Spss 2019 version 26

For parasitological data, prevalence P(%) and mean abundance (MA) of infection were calculated according to [11 (link)].
$$P\left(\%\right)=\frac{ni}{n\Sigma }\times 100$$
where ni = number of hosts with a specific parasite i and n∑ = total number of hosts examined.
$$MA=\frac{I{\Sigma }_i}{n\Sigma }$$
where I∑_i = total number of a specific parasite species i and n∑_i = total number of examined hosts [10 (link)].
The prevalence of parasites were compared among locations using unconditional exact tests [12 (link)]. Abundances were compared between localities using the bootstrap t-test. The biased accelerated bootstrap (BCa bootstrap) was used to provide the confidence interval of the mean abundance. The length classes of the fish were compared with parasite abundance using the Mann–Whitney U test. The comparison between the sex categories (males, females and indeterminate) and the abundance of parasites was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Spearman’s correlation was conducted to find the relationship between the abundance of parasites and the length classes. All statistical analyses were performed using the Quantitative Parasitology Web portal (https://www2.univet.hu/qpweb/qp10/ (accessed on 28 July 2022)) [12 (link)] and the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 2019 version 26. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

The validity of the developed model in terms of feasibility was assessed using the Delphi technique. The participants who were recruited in the first phase of the study also participated in the third phase of study. Electronic files or hardcopies of the questionnaire were provided to 21 key informants who were asked to fill the model during a two-week period. From the questionnaires sent, 18 questionnaires were filled and returned to the investigator. In the third phase of the study, the collected data was analyzed using SPSS (2019, Version 26). Mean and standard deviation of each question were determined. The research team assessed each participants’ opinions and suggestions mentioned in the questionnaire. In this study, scores with a mean of 3 or above meant that the participant considered the proposed model as credible. Scores below 3 illustrate that those criteria needed to be excluded or revised. The criteria that the expert panel suggested to revise were ultimately changed.