Elicited imitation (EI) is a method of assessing oral proficiency in which the examinee listens to a prompt and attempts to repeat it back exactly as it was heard. Research over recent decades has successfully established correlation between EI testing and other oral proficiency tests, such as the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the OPI by computer (OPIc). This paper details the history of oral proficiency assessment as well as that of EI. It then outlines the development process and validation of a Portuguese Elicited Imitation test. The processes of item selection and item validation are detailed followed by the criterion-related validation through a statistical correlation analysis of participants' results on an official American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) OPIc and their predicted OPIc scores which were based on their results of the Portuguese EI calibration test. Results of the statistical analysis revealed a strong correlation between the predicted scores of the EI test and the actual OPIc scores. In order to go beyond previously completed EI research, this paper addresses the issue of face validity which has been a challenge for the proliferation of EI testing. Analysis of a survey administered after participants' completion of the two tests (OPIc and EI) addresses the experiences and reactions of the participants to the two testing formats. Suggestions for future use of EI as well as future research will be presented.

No description available.

No description available.

Background: New genomic tests are being developed to predict an individual’s risk of cancer recurrence by analyzing the expression of multiple genes. However, it is unclear how to report the test results so that they would be most useful to clinicians. A mail-out questionnaire has the potential to help a) describe physicians’ attitudes towards the clinical use of new genomic tests, b) determine what information physicians prefer to have included in the test reports, and c) explore how physicians think the test results would impact their treatment recommendations. Objectives: To design such a questionnaire that could be used in the eventual large-scale survey, and to ensure that the questionnaire a) is comprehensible, b) has face validity, c) appears interesting to, and d) does not place undue response burden on, the target population. Methods: The first draft, based on a specific genomic test for breast cancer recurrence (Oncotype DX) and on two case scenarios, was created. Cognitive interviews with practicing oncologists were conducted to identify problems in the questionnaire. The evaluation involved face-to-face interviews with Kingston oncologists who treat breast cancer, followed by telephone interviews with medical oncologists who treat breast cancer in other places in Ontario. Three-to-four oncologists were included in each round of interviewing after which the questionnaire was revised based on that round’s recommendations. Additional rounds of interviews were conducted until no new problems/issues were raised in one entire round. Results: A medium-length questionnaire was drafted. Four rounds of interviews were conducted with no new problems/issues being raised in the fourth round. Most of the problems identified in the questionnaire related to comprehensibility, followed by logical issues which detected fundamental problems in the questionnaire design. There was no evidence of fatigue or disinterest in participants and they deemed the response burden reasonable. Conclusion: The results suggest that the proposed questionnaire is comprehensible and has face validity. Additionally, it appears to be an interesting questionnaire to, and would not place undue burden on, the target population. Thus, the questionnaire is now ready for the field administration. / Thesis (Master, Community Health & Epidemiology) -- Queen's University, 2009-05-05 17:23:10.551

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Although interviews are a widely used and popular selection technique, when they lack clear structure and a predetermined set of questions, bias can permeate the interview selection process. In particular, illegal interview questions (i.e., questions that cannot legally be asked, such as marital status or children) may be particularly threatening for female applicants. Justice and social identity theory were used to explain the applicant reactions to illegal interview questions in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical interview conditions – a control of four low face-valid interview questions, four non-gender relevant illegal interview questions, or four gender-relevant illegal interview questions. There was a significant gender by condition interaction on all outcome measures. Illegal interview questions had a significant negative effect on women’s organizational reactions (job pursuit intentions, organizational attractiveness, belonging, trust & comfort) but not on men’s organizational reactions. In contrast both women and men had significantly lower procedural justice perceptions of the gender-relevant illegal interview condition compared to the two other conditions. However, women perceived the illegal interview questions (both the gender relevant and gender non-relevant questions) as lower in face validity (i.e., were less relevant to the job), whereas men perceived all the interview questions as equally face-valid. Thus, although men believed the illegal interview questions were low in procedural justice and unfair, men still perceived these questions as valid and job-relevant. Overall, an indirect effect of procedural justice perceptions on organizational reactions was significant for both men and women, indicating that lower procedural justice did have a significant negative effect on applicants’ organizational reactions. Taken together, the following study demonstrates that illegal interview questions (both those related to gender and unrelated to gender) act as a social identity threat for women and harm women’s attraction to the organization, whereas men are primarily unaffected by these illegal interview questions in their reactions.

Hand-intensive work significantly correlates with the increased risks of developing Distal upper-extremity (DUE) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. Many studies have investigated the physical risk factors and their contribution to the occurrence of the DUE WMSDs. These factors include but are not limited to hand force, level of hand movement repetition, and non-neutral hand-wrist postures. Several observational-based risk assessment methods have emerged from these studies to control these risk factors and reduce the DUE WMSDs' development. In this regard, The RAMP Tool's Hand Model (RAMP's HM) has been developed recently by the Ergonomics Division at KTH Royal Institute of Technology as a new model within the RAMP Tool .The aim with RAMP's HM is to fulfill the need for an observational-based, preventive, research-oriented, and systematic method of risk management targeting the elevated risks of DUE occupational injuries associated with hand-intensive tasks. Moreover, the RAMP's HM seeks to investigate and combine a more significant number of ergonomic risk factors than those covered by existing DUE observational-based risk assessment methods. This master's thesis project evaluated the latest prototype of RAMP's HM for reliability, usability, and face validity. A group of ten ergonomists and ergonomics coordinators, all working at Scania AB, had volunteered to participate in this evaluation study. They assessed eight video records of hand-intensive work tasks across various industries using RAMP's HM. The raters assessed the model's inter-rater and intra-rater reliability by evaluating eight video records of hand-intensive work tasks in two assessment sessions, which were separated by a 21-day gap. The ergonomists also used the 2018 ACGIH® Hand Activity Level (HAL)– Threshold Limit Value (HAL Tool) to assess the same video-recorded tasks in the two sessions to evaluate the reliability of RAMP's HM in comparison (the inter-method reliability). Seven of the ten ergonomists volunteered to complete a quantitative questionnaire using a 5-Likert scale to assess the usability and face validity of the new RAMP model. The evaluation showed that the RAMP Tool's Hand Model has fair inter-rater and moderate intra-rater reliability. The reliability test also showed a similar level of reliability for the two methods, with no significant differences between the reliability results of RAMP's HM and HAL. The reliability results of the RAMP's HM may have been adversely influenced by statistical factors, and factors related to the observation process, raters' experience and background, and pre-test training. The categories of the resulting ratings for overall risk levels on the task level using RAMP's HM and the HAL Tool agreed in over 75% of ratings. According to the ergonomists, RAMP's HM is usable; it supports the systematic risk management approach, and their answers indicated that it has been designed in a user-centered way. Furthermore, the evaluation results indicated a strong face validity for RAMP's HM. Raters perceived the new model as a practical tool for systematically managing DUE WMSDs and the corresponding risk factors across various work environments and industries. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that comprehensive education and practical training on RAMP's HM are provided before conducting further evaluations, i.e., on the complete RAMP 2.0 version. Furthermore, it is recommended to include more participants and tasks in such evaluations. Additionally, it may be valuable to consider using other reliability parameters besides the weighted Cohen's kappa.

No description available.

The rapid growth in opioid therapy for non-cancer pain has occurred without an adequate appreciation of the consequences of this growth. Few studies provide patient-centered evidence that can be used to inform the current proposed standards for efficacious (safe and effective) opioid prescribing in non-cancer pain. Furthermore, different terms may be used interchangeably in the literature to refer to opioid-taking behaviors, resulting in imprecise or vague interpretation of existing evidence. We therefore sought to explore patterns of opioid-taking behavior and their biopsychosocial-spiritual determinants in African-American adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Many questions surround opioid use for non-cancer pain, but little has been published about behavioral patterns of taking opioids in these conditions. The main objective of this study was to develop a disease-specific scale for describing prescribed opioid taking in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). As part of a multiphase, mixed-methods study, we used an adaptation of several published methods to construct 9 sequential, chronological steps for developing a new scale. We report here wide-ranging quantitative and semi-structured, qualitative interviews of 13 male and 11 female African-American adults with SCD, average age 36 years, from various socioeconomic and educational levels. We used grounded theory, priori and posteriori procedures to analyze the qualitative data, and to conduct an appraisal of translational validity. Scale development results have led to inclusion in the draft scale of new concepts namely momentary medication-taking behavior. The scale also captures concrete patterns of adherence for as-needed and scheduled medication and allows for several discovered conceptual domains that explain observed opioid-taking behaviors. These concepts challenge the current theories and models of medication-taking behavior and adherence. In summary, we found that contextual factors may drastically affect opioid-taking behaviors. Together, These uncovered phenomena raise new hypotheses that may challenge current theories and models of medication-taking behaviors and methods of assessing adherence. These hypotheses call for a new round of research on opioid-taking behavior, and need to be rigorously tested in future research

The primary purpose of this study was to develop and establish the reliability and validity of the East Asian Student Stress Inventory. Data was obtained from 235 East Asian students at the University of North Texas during the fall semester of 1992. The procedures used were a two-week interval test-retest for reliability, experts' assessment of test items for face validity, a factor analysis, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient for construct validity. Significance was set at the .05 level. The EASSI was identified as having moderately high reliability. High test anxiety, physiological symptoms, social support, financial difficulty, and culture shock were found to be constructs of the EASSI. Majority of independent variables in this study effectively identified stressors and stresses among East Asian students.

The diploma thesis "Health and Socio-economic Indicators - reliability and validity testing of the PSAS" deals with a theoretical concept of health and its socio-economic indicators. A substantial part of the work concentrates on the application of PSAS tools to the Czech population and determining whether the range is reliable and valid for Czech respondents. To determine the reliability, a complex test is used for the whole range through the value of Cronbach's Alpha, and then the Item Response Theory (IRT) is also tested. The IRT test is done using the 18-point Likert's range of responses, of which is the PSAS composed. The validity is tested based on confirmatory factor analysis, using the construct validity as well as analysis of cognitive interviews for face validity. The secondary data analysis is done in SPSS, MPLUS, R, and IRTPRO programs. The last two programs are used to test the lesser known Item Response Theory.