Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Peer group similarities in adolescent hostile attribution tendencies

A bias towards attributing hostile intent to others has been linked to aggression. In an adolescent sample, we investigated whether peer group homophily exists in the tendency towards attributing hostile intent. We assessed hostile attribution tendencies and self-reported aggressive behaviours in a normative sample of 910 adolescents, and computed average peer group scores based on nominated friend scores. Results indicated that adolescents showed significant correlations between their own level of hostile attributions and that of their peer group. Further analyses indicated that this effect occurred specifically in reciprocal friendships, and was retained even once own and peer group level of aggression were controlled.

Chess endgame news

A report of the new Bourzutschky/Konoval chess endgame depth record of DTC = 330 moves, and of the progress of the Kryukov peer-group to disseminate Nalimov's DTM EGTs. The question of data integrity and assurance is raised.

Advancing construction industry development, innovative research and new thinking

Academic writing has a tendency to be turgid and impenetrable. This is not only anathema to communication between academics, but also a major barrier to advancing construction industry development. Clarity in our communication is a prerequisite to effective collaboration with industry. An exploration of what it means to be an academic in a University is presented in order to provide a context for a discussion on how academics might collaborate with industry to advance development. There are conflicting agendas that pull the academic in different directions: peer group recognition, institutional success and industry development. None can be achieved without the other, which results in the need for a careful balancing act. While academics search for better understandings and provisional explanations within the context of conceptual models, industry seeks the practical application of new ideas, whether the ideas come from research or experience. Universities have a key role to play in industry development and in economic development.

Supporting ad hoc collaborations in peer-to-peer networks

Traditionally, applications and tools supporting collaborative computing have been designed only with personal computers in mind and support a limited range of computing and network platforms. These applications are therefore not well equipped to deal with network heterogeneity and, in particular, do not cope well with dynamic network topologies. Progress in this area must be made if we are to fulfil the needs of users and support the diversity, mobility, and portability that are likely to characterise group work in future. This paper describes a groupware platform called Coco that is designed to support collaboration in a heterogeneous network environment. The work demonstrates that progress in the p development of a generic supporting groupware is achievable, even in the context of heterogeneous and dynamic networks. The work demonstrates the progress made in the development of an underlying communications infrastructure, building on peer-to-peer concept and topologies to improve scalability and robustness.

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Farmer attitudes and livestock disease: exploring citizenship behaviour and peer monitoring across two BVD control schemes in the UK

The eradication of BVD in the UK is technically possible but appears to be socially untenable. The following study explored farmer attitudes to BVD control schemes in relation to advice networks and information sharing, shared aims and goals, motivation and benefits of membership, notions of BVD as a priority disease and attitudes toward regulation. Two concepts from the organisational management literature framed the study: citizenship behaviour where actions of individuals support the collective good (but are not explicitly recognised as such) and peer to peer monitoring (where individuals evaluate other’s behaviour). Farmers from two BVD control schemes in the UK participated in the study: Orkney Livestock Association BVD Eradication Scheme and Norfolk and Suffolk Cattle Breeders Association BVD Eradication Scheme. In total 162 farmers participated in the research (109 in-scheme and 53 out of scheme). The findings revealed that group helping and information sharing among scheme members was low with a positive BVD status subject to social censure. Peer monitoring in the form of gossip with regard to the animal health status of other farms was high. Interestingly, farmers across both schemes supported greater regulation with regard to animal health, largely due to the mistrust of fellow farmers following voluntary disease control measures. While group cohesiveness varied across the two schemes, without continued financial inducements, longer-term sustainability is questionable