This qualitative, descriptive study explored physiotherapists' experience of participating in peer review in public and private health services in New Zealand. Peer review is a professional activity where one health practitioner evaluates the practice of another. Accordingly, much professional effort has been expended on developing peer review systems and implementing review processes, yet the benefits of peer review are uncertain. A changing legislative environment where producing evidence of ongoing professional development is required, has provided impetus for this study given the limited research to support the use of peer review in this context. While the literature identifies competing focuses on professional development and accountability, there is lack of clarity about which model of peer review is being implemented in this country and which might serve the profession better. This study is a first step in clarifying the issues by identifying the personal, professional and organisational factors that influence health professionals' participation in peer review. The methodology consisted of a qualitative descriptive approach situated within a post positivist paradigm. Seven physiotherapists working in the New Zealand health system who had participated in a peer review process within the last 3 years participated in this study. Semi structured interviews were conducted, guided by broad questions relating to central themes identified during an extensive literature review. Interviews were then audio taped and transcribed verbatim to form the data. Transcripts were analysed by assigning content labels to units of text that seemed to encapsulate one complete thought or idea. The labelled groups were analysed into sub themes. Finally, the general themes that arose were described. Findings indicate that while peer review systems have been developed and are carried out as prescribed, therapists lack clarity about the intended outcomes. While recognising the benefits of receiving feedback on practice, many manage the review process to maintain positive working relationships and ensure their practice is favourably reviewed. The strategies they employ and the consequences of managing peer review in these ways are described. Current peer review processes in New Zealand do not provide reliable information about competence to practice. Neither do they fully achieve their potential as a professional development tool. Therefore, the professional emphasis and effort on peer review needs to be revisited. The findings highlight the need for consultation amongst individual physiotherapists, physiotherapy managers, physiotherapy professional organisations, and the registration board, to negotiate whether regulatory or professional development needs will drive peer review processes in New Zealand in the future.

No description available.

Thesis (PhD (Public Affairs))--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Abstract in English. Includes bibliographical references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

No description available.

This study examined emotional reactions that occurred when participants compared the fairness of own outcomes to that of peer outcomes. The mediating role of emotions (pride, guilt, envy, or anger) on the fairness perceptions and the intention to engage in organizational citizenship (OCB) or counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) was assessed. Two hundred and sixty nine undergraduate business students participated in the main study. Peer evaluation vignettes were used to simulate four fairness conditions. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test the hypotheses. The results indicated that perceived fairness to self interacted with perceived fairness to others, which led to emotional reactions, including pride, guilt, envy, and anger. Perceived fairness also directly influenced behaviour. However, only the negative emotions of anger and envy acted as mediators. As such, anger decreased OCB intention and increased CWB intention. Envy decreased the intention to engage in OCB. Implications of the results were discussed. / x, 128 leaves ; 29 cm

During the last few decades peer collaboration has been commonly practised in Second Language (L2) writing classrooms. Despite the conceptual shift towards process, student-centred orientation to writing pedagogy, there are still many L2 composition courses around the world which consider writing as a finished product and assign a central role to writing instructors. This qualitative case study research is one of the first attempts which have been set out to probe the interactional dynamics, revision behaviours, writing performance, and perceptions of Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students engaged in peer review and collaborative revision activities in two genres, process and argumentation, in light of sociocultural perspective of learning. The participants were 5 lower intermediate to intermediate English translation student dyads enrolled in a semester long essay writing course. Drawing on the data collected from audio-recordings, observations, written texts, and interviews, the study investigated how this group of L2 learners approached these two distinct tasks, how they reacted to the feedback they received either from their partners or teacher, how they used the comments to improve their writing performance, and how they viewed each of the tasks they were involved in. Analysis of audio-recorded data revealed that students stayed on task for most of the allocated time and employed three distinct dyadic negotiations; evaluative, social, and procedural with both partners being capable of pooling ideas and providing each other scaffolded help regardless of their level of L2 writing proficiency. However, the majority of conversations and scaffolding concentrated on surface level features of compositions. Further, examination of written texts produced by students during writing cycles demonstrated that they incorporated higher number of teacher‟s comments into their subsequent drafts than their peers‟ feedback and collaborative revision contributed to greater degree of improvement in the quality of the essays they developed compared to peer reviewing. Retrospective interviews also indicated that collaborative tasks were generally perceived as useful, yet the participants expressed scepticism about the validity of peer comments and did not feel competent enough to address their partners‟ papers. Nevertheless, they showed more favourable reactions towards collaborative revision activity than peer reviewing. The researcher concludes that collaborative revision can be used as an interim activity for the move from the traditional, product-based, teacher fronted L2 writing pedagogy to a more theoretically sound, process-based, student fronted approach to writing instruction in EFL contexts.

This qualitative, descriptive study explored physiotherapists' experience of participating in peer review in public and private health services in New Zealand. Peer review is a professional activity where one health practitioner evaluates the practice of another. Accordingly, much professional effort has been expended on developing peer review systems and implementing review processes, yet the benefits of peer review are uncertain. A changing legislative environment where producing evidence of ongoing professional development is required, has provided impetus for this study given the limited research to support the use of peer review in this context. While the literature identifies competing focuses on professional development and accountability, there is lack of clarity about which model of peer review is being implemented in this country and which might serve the profession better. This study is a first step in clarifying the issues by identifying the personal, professional and organisational factors that influence health professionals' participation in peer review. The methodology consisted of a qualitative descriptive approach situated within a post positivist paradigm. Seven physiotherapists working in the New Zealand health system who had participated in a peer review process within the last 3 years participated in this study. Semi structured interviews were conducted, guided by broad questions relating to central themes identified during an extensive literature review. Interviews were then audio taped and transcribed verbatim to form the data. Transcripts were analysed by assigning content labels to units of text that seemed to encapsulate one complete thought or idea. The labelled groups were analysed into sub themes. Finally, the general themes that arose were described. Findings indicate that while peer review systems have been developed and are carried out as prescribed, therapists lack clarity about the intended outcomes. While recognising the benefits of receiving feedback on practice, many manage the review process to maintain positive working relationships and ensure their practice is favourably reviewed. The strategies they employ and the consequences of managing peer review in these ways are described. Current peer review processes in New Zealand do not provide reliable information about competence to practice. Neither do they fully achieve their potential as a professional development tool. Therefore, the professional emphasis and effort on peer review needs to be revisited. The findings highlight the need for consultation amongst individual physiotherapists, physiotherapy managers, physiotherapy professional organisations, and the registration board, to negotiate whether regulatory or professional development needs will drive peer review processes in New Zealand in the future.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, August, 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--Rochester Institute of Technology, 2009. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 24-26).