Advantage of single-trial models for response to selection in wheat breeding multi-environment trials

An investigation was conducted to evaluate the impact of experimental designs and spatial analyses (single-trial models) of the response to selection for grain yield in the northern grains region of Australia (Queensland and northern New South Wales). Two sets of multi-environment experiments were considered. One set, based on 33 trials conducted from 1994 to 1996, was used to represent the testing system of the wheat breeding program and is referred to as the multi-environment trial (MET). The second set, based on 47 trials conducted from 1986 to 1993, sampled a more diverse set of years and management regimes and was used to represent the target population of environments (TPE). There were 18 genotypes in common between the MET and TPE sets of trials. From indirect selection theory, the phenotypic correlation coefficient between the MET and TPE single-trial adjusted genotype means [r(p(MT))] was used to determine the effect of the single-trial model on the expected indirect response to selection for grain yield in the TPE based on selection in the MET. Five single-trial models were considered: randomised complete block (RCB), incomplete block (IB), spatial analysis (SS), spatial analysis with a measurement error (SSM) and a combination of spatial analysis and experimental design information to identify the preferred (PF) model. Bootstrap-resampling methodology was used to construct multiple MET data sets, ranging in size from 2 to 20 environments per MET sample. The size and environmental composition of the MET and the single-trial model influenced the r(p(MT)). On average, the PF model resulted in a higher r(p(MT)) than the IB, SS and SSM models, which were in turn superior to the RCB model for MET sizes based on fewer than ten environments. For METs based on ten or more environments, the r(p(MT)) was similar for all single-trial models.

How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review

Review date: Review period January 1992-December 2001. Final analysis July 2004-January 2005. Background and review context: There has been no rigorous systematic review of the outcomes of early exposure to clinical and community settings in medical education. Objectives of review: (1) Identify published empirical evidence of the effects of early experience in medical education, analyse it, and synthesize conclusions from it. (2) Identify the strengths and limitations of the research effort to date, and identify objectives for future research. Search strategy: Ovid search of. BEI, ERIC, Medline, CIATAHL and EMBASE Additional electronic searches of: Psychinfo, Timelit, EBM reviews, SIGLE, and the Cochrane databases. Hand-searches of: Medical Education, Medical Teacher, Academic Medicine, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Journal of Educational Psychology. Criteria: Definitions: Experience: Authentic (real as opposed to simulated) human contact in a social or clinical context that enhances learning of health, illness and/or disease, and the role of the health professional. Early: What would traditionally have been regarded as the preclinical phase, usually the first 2 years. Inclusions: All empirical studies (verifiable, observational data) of early experience in the basic education of health professionals, whatever their design or methodology, including papers not in English. Evidence from other health care professions that could be applied to medicine was included. Exclusions: Not empirical; not early; post-basic; simulated rather than 'authentic' experience. Data collection: Careful validation of selection processes. Coding by two reviewers onto an extensively modified version of the standard BEME coding sheet. Accumulation into an Access database. Secondary coding and synthesis of an interpretation. Headline results: A total of 73 studies met the selection criteria and yielded 277 educational outcomes; 116 of those outcomes (from 38 studies) were rated strong and important enough to include in a narrative synthesis of results; 76% of those outcomes were from descriptive studies and 24% from comparative studies. Early experience motivated and satisfied students of the health professions and helped them acclimatize to clinical environments, develop professionally, interact with patients with more confidence and less stress, develop self-reflection and appraisal skill, and develop a professional identity. It strengthened their learning and made it more real and relevant to clinical practice. It helped students learn about the structure and function of the healthcare system, and about preventive care and the role of health professionals. It supported the learning of both biomedical and behavioural/social sciences and helped students acquire communication and basic clinical skills. There were outcomes for beneficiaries other than students, including teachers, patients, populations, organizations and specialties. Early experience increased recruitment to primary care/rural medical practice, though mainly in US studies which introduced it for that specific purpose as part of a complex intervention. Conclusions: Early experience helps medical students socialize to their chosen profession. It. helps them acquire a range of subject matter and makes their learning more real and relevant. It has potential benefits for other stakeholders, notably teachers and patients. It can influence career choices.