The Behavior Rating Inventory Of Executive Function - Self-Report Version (Brief-Sr) And The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function Sys

The assessment of executive functions is an area of study that has seen considerable development in recent years. Despite much research examining the validity of various measures of executive functions from both a direct and indirect format, little evidence exists in the extant literature evaluating the correspondence between these types of measures. The current study examined the extent of correspondence, comprising concurrent validity, between the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function ¿ Self-Report Version (BRIEF-SR). Participants included 30 undergraduate and high school students 18 years of age. Results indicated mixed evidence of concurrent validity between the two measures of executive functions. The findings obtained suggest both expected significant, negative correlation as well as lack of expected correlation between the measures. Suggestions for future research in the assessment of executive functions are discussed.

“All Data is Credit Data,” or, On Close Reading as a Reciprocal Process in Digital Knowledge Environments

The new knowledge environments of the digital age are oen described as places where we are all closely read, with our buying habits, location, and identities available to advertisers, online merchants, the government, and others through our use of the Internet. This is represented as a loss of privacy in which these entities learn about our activities and desires, using means that were unavailable in the pre-digital era. This article argues that the reciprocal nature of digital networks means 1) that the privacy issues that we face online are not radically different from those of the pre-Internet era, and 2) that we need to reconceive of close reading as an activity of which both humans and computer algorithms are capable.

Competencies in arts therapies: A rating of importance, training and performance by practitioners and referring professionals in Switzerland

This survey was conducted in developing a final specialized examination for all arts therapists in Switzerland by the Council of Swiss Arts Therapy Associations (CSATA). Forty-eight generic key competencies (GKC) were sent to all 1235 arts therapists in five different disciplines in Switzerland (response 47.5%) and to 384 referring professionals and employers (RPE) listed by therapists (response 42%). The mean importance of GKC was rated high (4 points of 5) by practitioners and RPE. Different opinions on importance of GKC in disciplines included artistic ability and psychotherapeutic relative to medical orientation. The training of competencies was rated lower by practitioners (3.48 points) and different in the eight competence categories and five disciplines. Areas of weak training were identified. The performance of GKC was rated by referring professionals equally to its importance (mean +0.3 points) and showed a good understanding of competencies by RPE. Judging of performance was difficult for RPE in more than 20% of items. The results provide criteria for detailed outcome assessments and the advancement of a final examination for arts therapists in Switzerland.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.

Reference photographs for nasolabial appearance rating in unilateral cleft lip and palate

A popular method for nasolabial rating in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) is the Asher-McDade system consisting of a 5-point ordinal scale assessing nasal form, nasal symmetry, nasal profile, and vermilion border. The aim of the current study was to identify reference photographs illustrating this scale to facilitate its use.Four observers assessed nasolabial appearance on frontal and profile photographs of the nasolabial area of 42 children of Caucasian origin with a repaired UCLP at age 9 years. Cronbachs alpha, based on the individual scores of the 4 observers, ranged from 0.73 to 0.82 for the 4 nasolabial ratings, indicating a good reliability. The reliability of the overall score (mean of the 4 component scores) was also high (Cronbachs alpha, 0.83). Both for the nasolabial component ratings and for the overall score, duplicate measurement errors were small. The reliability for the mean of the 4 observers' scores was good, Spearman rank correlation coefficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.96.Subsequently, photographs were selected that showed the highest agreement among observers. For each of the 4 components (eg, nasal form, nasal deviation, nasal profile, and shape of the vermilion border), 5 photographs were selected to illustrate the whole range of the scale (score, 1-5), resulting in the selection of 20 pictures.It was concluded that nasolabial appearance rating can be performed reliably using a panel of judges and averaging the scores of all observers. Reference photographs, as developed from this study, may facilitate the rating task.