Australian Property Institute Inc, Submission to the Productivity Commission on Intellectual Property Arrangements – Issues Paper

This submission responds to the document Intellectual Property Arrangements Issues Paper (Issues Paper) released by the Productivity Commission in October 2015 for public consultation and input by 30 November 2015. The API is grateful for the extension of time granted by the Commission to complete and lodge this submission. The overall need for an inquiry into intellectual property is supported by API. In particular it is noted with approval that the Commission states in its Issues Paper that it is to consider the appropriate balance between “incentives for innovation and investments, and the interests of both individuals and businesses in assessing products”.1 However, API is of the view that intellectual property in the area of real property presents a number of issues which are not fully canvassed in the abovementioned Issues Paper. Intellectual property embedded in valuation and other property-related reports of API members involves the acquisition of information which may possibly be confidential. Yet, when engaged in banks and financial institutions the intellectual property in such valuations and/ or reports is commonly required to be passed to the client bank or financial institution. In the Issues Paper it is proposed that there are seven different forms of intellectual property rights.2 It is the view of API that an eight form exists, namely private agreements. The Issues Paper, however, regards private agreements between firms as alternatives to intellectual property rights. The API considers that “secrecy or confidentiality arrangements”3 as identified in the Issues Paper form a much larger part of the manner in which intellectual property is maintained in Australia for the purposes of trade secrecy or more often, financial confidentiality...

Psychometric properties of the DCDDaily-Q: A new parental questionnaire on children's performance in activities of daily living

Difficulties in the performance of activities of daily living (ADL) are a key feature of developmental coordination disorder (DCD). The DCDDaily-Q was developed to address children's motor performance in a comprehensive range ADL. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of this parental questionnaire. Parents of 218 five to eight year-old children (DCD group: N=25; reference group: N=193) completed the research version of the new DCDDaily-Q and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC2) Checklist and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ). Children were assessed with the MABC2 and DCDDaily. Item reduction analyses were performed and reliability (internal consistency and factor structure) and concurrent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the DCDDaily-Q were investigated. The final version of the DCDDaily-Q comprises 23 items that cover three underlying factors and shows good internal consistency (Cronbach's α>.80). Moderate correlations were found between the DCDDaily-Q and the other instruments used (p<.001 for the reference group; p>.05 for the DCD group). Discriminant validity of the DCDDaily-Q was good for DCDDaily-Q total scores (p<.001) and all 23 item scores (p<.01), indicating poorer performance in the DCD group. Sensitivity (88%) and specificity (92%) were good. The DCDDaily-Q better predicted DCD than currently used questionnaires (R2=.88). In conclusion, the DCDDaily-Q is a valid and reliable questionnaire to address children's ADL performance.