University and school students' motivation for effortful thinking: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the German Need for Cognition Scale

Need for cognition (NFC) reflects a relatively stable trait regarding the degree to which one enjoys and engages in cognitive endeavors. We examined whether the previously demonstrated one-dimensional structure of the German NFC Scale could be replicated in three samples of undergraduates and secondary school students. Moreover, we investigated the test-retest reliability of the German NFC Scale, which has not yet been tested. Further, we investigated whether the scale would be valid in a sample of secondary school students. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses established the one-dimensional factor structure of the long form as well as the short form of the German NFC Scale for undergraduates (N = 559), students of academic track secondary schools (German Gymnasium; N = 555), and students of vocational track secondary schools (German Realschule; N = 486). The scale proved to have a high test-retest reliability in a university student sample (N = 43). For secondary school students, we again found a high test-retest reliability (N = 157), and also found the scale to be valid (N = 181).

Hip Osteoarthritis MRI Scoring System (HOAMS): reliability and associations with radiographic and clinical findings

To develop a semiquantitative MRI-based scoring system (HOAMS) of hip osteoarthritis (OA) and test its reliability and validity.

Reproducibility and validity of video screen measurements of gait in children with spastic cerebral palsy

PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and validity of video screen measurement (VSM) of sagittal plane joint angles during gait. METHODS: 17 children with spastic cerebral palsy walked on a 10m walkway. Videos were recorded and 3d-instrumented gait analysis was performed. Two investigators measured six sagittal joint/segment angles (shank, ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk) using a custom-made software package. The intra- and interrater reproducibility were expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). The agreement between VSM and 3d joint angles was illustrated by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: Regarding the intrarater reproducibility of VSM, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.58 (trunk), the SEM from 0.81 degrees (shank) to 5.97 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.80 degrees (shank) to 16.55 degrees (trunk). Regarding the interrater reproducibility, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.48 (trunk), the SEM from 0.70 degrees (shank) to 6.78 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.95 degrees (shank) to 18.8 degrees (trunk). The LoA between VSM and 3d data ranged from 0.4+/-13.4 degrees (knee extension stance) to 12.0+/-14.6 degrees (ankle dorsiflexion swing). CONCLUSION: When performed by the same observer, VSM mostly allows the detection of relevant changes after an intervention. However, VSM angles differ from 3d-IGA and do not reflect the real sagittal joint position, probably due to the additional movements in the other planes.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Reliability and discriminatory power of methods for dental plaque quantification

This in situ study evaluated the discriminatory power and reliability of methods of dental plaque quantification and the relationship between visual indices (VI) and fluorescence camera (FC) to detect plaque.

Development and validation of a paediatric long-bone fracture classification. A prospective multicentre study in 13 European paediatric trauma centres

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a child-specific classification system for long bone fractures and to examine its reliability and validity on the basis of a prospective multicentre study. METHODS: Using the sequentially developed classification system, three samples of between 30 and 185 paediatric limb fractures from a pool of 2308 fractures documented in two multicenter studies were analysed in a blinded fashion by eight orthopaedic surgeons, on a total of 5 occasions. Intra- and interobserver reliability and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: The reliability improved with successive simplification of the classification. The final version resulted in an overall interobserver agreement of κ = 0.71 with no significant difference between experienced and less experienced raters. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the evaluation of the newly proposed classification system resulted in a reliable and routinely applicable system, for which training in its proper use may further improve the reliability. It can be recommended as a useful tool for clinical practice and offers the option for developing treatment recommendations and outcome predictions in the future.

Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni District, Kenya

This article describes the indigenous knowledge (IK) that agro-pastoralists in larger Makueni District, Kenya hold and how they use it to monitor, mitigate and adapt to drought. It examines ways of integrating IK into formal monitoring, how to enhance its value and acceptability. Data was collected through target interviews, group discussions and questionnaires covering 127 households in eight villages. Daily rainfall data from 1961–2003 were analysed. Results show that agro-pastoralists hold IK on indicators of rainfall variability; they believe in IK efficacy and they rely on them. Because agro-pastoralists consult additional sources, the authors interpret that IK forms a basic knowledge frame within which agro-pastoralists position and interpret meteorological forecasts. Only a few agro-pastoralists adapt their practices in anticipation of IK-based forecasts partly due to the conditioning of the actors to the high rainfall variability characteristic of the area and partly due to lack of resources. Non-drought factors such as poverty, inadequate resources and lack of preparedness expose agro-pastoralists to drought impacts and limit their adaptive capacity. These factors need to be understood and effectively addressed to increase agro-pastoralists’ decision options and the influence of IK-based forecasts on their decision-making patterns. The limited intergenerational transfer of IK currently threatens its existence in the longer term. One way to ensure its continued existence and use is to integrate IK into the education curriculum and to link IK with formal climate change research through the participation of the local people. However, further studies are necessary to address the reliability and validity of the identified IK indicators of climate variability and change.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Reliability and stability of lucid dream and nightmare frequency scales

Lucid dream and nightmare frequencies vary greatly between individuals and to assess these differences reliable instruments are needed. The present study aimed to examine the reliability of eight-point scales for measuring lucid dream and nightmare frequencies. The scales were administered twice (with a four-week interval) to 93 sport students. A re-test reliability for the lucid dream frequency was found r=.89 (p<.001) and for the nightmare frequency r=.75 (p<.001). Both eight-point scales appear to be reliable measures for assessing individual differences in lucid dream and nightmare frequencies.