Instrumentation at CERC's Field Research Facility, Duck, North Carolina /

"October 1980."

Proposed small saver deposit instruments [microform] : hearing before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation and Insurance of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, May 7, 1979.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Cardiovascular instrumentation : proceedings of the Working Conference on Applicability of New Technology to Biobehavioral Research, May 16-19, 1982, Houston, Texas /

"March 1984."

The development of an apparatus for cutting tooth structure by means of ultrasonic vibrations. research progress report.

"Project no. NM 008 015.08"

A linear scanner for human radioisotope research /

"Contract No. AT(40-1)-Gen-33."

Academic research equipment and equipment needs in selected science and engineering fields, 1989-90 /

Mode of access: Internet.

Catalogue of the science collections for teaching and research in the South Kensington Museum ...

At head of title: Department of Science and Art of the Committee of Council of Education.

Airborne research platform : the De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter.

Mode of access: Internet.

Industrial research and changing technology,

Issued also in Changing technology: industrial instruments, industrial research, fuel efficiency, capital formation (National research project on reemployment opportunities and recent changes in industrial techniques) [1938-40]

Instrumentation and measuring systems for stratospheric research : report /

"March 1977--Cover."

Psychological research on equipment design.

Includes bibliographies.

I don't see me like you see me, but is that a problem? Cultural influences on rating discrepancy in 360-degree feedback instruments

360-degree feedback from a variety of rater sources yields important information about leaders' styles, strengths and weaknesses for development. Results where observer ratings are discrepant (i.e., different) from self-ratings are often seen as indicators of problematic leadership relationships, skills, or lack of self-awareness. Yet research into the antecedents of such self-observer rating discrepancy suggests the presence of systematic influences, such as cultural values. The present study investigates the variation of rating discrepancies on three leadership skills (decision making, leading employees, and composure) in dependence of one exemplary culture dimension (power distance) on data from 31 countries using multilevel structural equation modelling. Results show that cultural values indeed predict self-observer rating discrepancies. Thus, systemic and contextual influences such as culture need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the importance and meaning of self-observer rating discrepancies in 360-degree instruments.

Quality of life instruments in studies of menorrhagia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The use of quality of life (QoL) instruments in menorrhagia research is increasing but there is concern that not enough emphasis is placed on patient-focus in these measurements, i.e. on issues which are of importance to patients and reflect their experiences and concerns (clinical face validity). The objective was to assess the quality of QoL instruments in studies of menorrhagia. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of published research. Papers were identified through MEDLINE (1966-April 2000), EMBASE (1980-April 2000), Science Citation Index (1981-April 2000), Social Science Citation Index (1981-April 2000), CINAHL (1982-1999) and PsychLIT (1966-1999), and by manual searching of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Studies were selected if they assessed women with menorrhagia for life quality, either developing QoL instruments or applying them as an outcome measure. Selected studies were assessed for quality of their QoL instruments, using a 17 items checklist including 10 items for clinical face validity (issues of relevance to patients' expectations and concerns) and 7 items for measurement properties (such as reliability, responsiveness, etc.). RESULTS: A total of 19 articles, 8 on instrument development and 11 on application, were included in the review. The generic Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF36) was used in 12/19 (63%) studies. Only two studies developed new specific QoL instruments for menorrhagia but they complied with 7/17 (41%) and 10/17 (59%) of the quality criteria. Quality assessment showed that only 7/19 (37%) studies complied with more than half the criteria for face validity whereas 17/19 (90%) studies complied with more than half of the criteria for measurement properties (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among existing QoL instruments, there is good compliance with the quality criteria for measurement properties but not with those for clinical face validity. There is a need to develop methodologically sound disease specific QoL instruments in menorrhagia focussing both on face validity and measurement properties.

Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews:A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

Objective: Qualitative research is increasingly valued as part of the evidence for policy and practice, but how it should be appraised is contested. Various appraisal methods, including checklists and other structured approaches, have been proposed but rarely evaluated. We aimed to compare three methods for appraising qualitative research papers that were candidates for inclusion in a systematic review of evidence on support for breast-feeding. Method: A sample of 12 research papers on support for breast-feeding was appraised by six qualitative reviewers using three appraisal methods: unprompted judgement, based on expert opinion; a UK Cabinet Office quality framework; and CASP, a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Papers were assigned, following appraisals, to 1 of 5 categories, which were dichotomized to indicate whether or not papers should be included in a systematic review. Patterns of agreement in categorization of papers were assessed quantitatively using κ statistics, and qualitatively using cross-case analysis. Results: Agreement in categorizing papers across the three methods was slight (κ =0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.24). Structured approaches did not appear to yield higher agreement than that by unprompted judgement. Qualitative analysis revealed reviewers' dilemmas in deciding between the potential impact of findings and the quality of the research execution or reporting practice. Structured instruments appeared to make reviewers more explicit about the reasons for their judgements. Conclusions: Structured approaches may not produce greater consistency of judgements about whether to include qualitative papers in a systematic review. Future research should address how appraisals of qualitative research should be incorporated in systematic reviews. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2007.