The Health Behavior Change Competency Checklist (HBCCC): Instrument development and psychometric evaluation.

More than half of morbidity and mortality in the United States can be attributed to behavior-related disease, such as tobacco use, physical inactivity, poor diet and alcohol consumption. Given the increased prevalence of behaviorally related medical health concerns, physician competence in the implementation of effective behavior change strategies is quickly becoming an essential skill. However, only recently have primary care residency programs begun to systematically teach and evaluate motivational interviewing skills critical to influencing health behavior, and use of standardized, objective assessment tools to assess skillfulness has been largely absent. This paper reports the development of a checklist, the Health Behavior Change Competency Checklist (HBCCC). The instrument captures the theoretical model of behavior change, motivational interviewing, in a practical and versatile manner. Psychometric evaluation demonstrated moderate efficacy. Namely, results indicated the HBCCC possesses good reliability, as evidenced by high internal consistency, and adequate construct validity. It also displayed considerable utility and practical application. While these results provide several reasons for confidence in the HBCCC, item revision and additional testing are required in order to establish it as a meaningful and valuable instrument.

Horizontal Innovation and Interface Patents

Scholars understandably devote a great deal of effort to studying how well patent law works to incentive the most important inventions. After all, these inventions form the foundation of our new technological age. But very little time is spent focusing on the other end of the spectrum, inventions that are no better than what the public already has. At first blush, studying such “horizontal” innovation seems pointless. But this inquiry actually reveals much about how patents can be used in unintended, and arguably, anticompetitive ways. This issue has roots in one unintuitive aspect of patent law. Despite the law’s goal of promoting innovation, patents can be obtained on inventions that are no better than existing technology. Such patents might appear worthless, but companies regularly obtain these patents to cover interfaces. That is because interface patents actually derive value from two distinct characteristics. First, they can have “innovation value” that is based on how much better the patentedinterface is than existing technology. Second, interface patents can also have “compatibility value.” In other words, the patented technology is often essential to make products operate (i.e. compatible) with a particular interface. In practical terms, this means that an interface patent that covers little or no meaningful advance can give a company the ability to extract rents and foreclose competition. This undesirable result is a consequence of how patent law has structured its remedies. For years patent law has implicitly awarded both innovation and compatibility values. Recently, the courts have taken a sensible first step and excluded compatibility value from reasonable royalty recoveries for standard essential patents. This Article argues that the law needs to go further and do the same for all essential interface patents. Additionally, patent law should reform the way it awards injunctions and lost profits to also exclude compatibility value. This proposal has two benefits. It would eliminate the incentives for wasteful patents on horizontal technology. Second, and more importantly, the value of all interfacepatents would be better aligned with the goals of the patent system.