Appropriate use criteria for echocardiography in the Netherlands

Introduction Appropriate use criteria (AUC) for echocardiography based on clinical scenarios were previously published by an American Task Force. We determined whether members of the Dutch Working Group on Echocardiography (WGE) would rate these scenarios in a similar way. Methods All 32 members of the WGE were invited to judge clinical scenarios independently using a blanked version of the previously published American version of AUC for echocardiography. During a face-to-face meeting, consensus about the final rating was reached by open discussion for each indication. For reasons of simplicity, the scores were reduced from a 9-point scale to a 3-point scale (indicating an appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate echo indication, respectively). Results Nine cardiologist members of the WGE reported their judgment on the echo cases (n = 153). Seventy-one indications were rated as appropriate, 35 were rated as uncertain, and 47 were rated as inappropriate. In 5% of the cases the rating was opposite to that in the original (appropriate compared with inappropriate and vice versa), whereas in 20% judgements differed by 1 level of appropriateness. After the consensus meeting, the appropriateness of 7 (5%) cases was judged differently compared with the original paper. Conclusions Echocardiography was rated appropriate when it is applied for an initial diagnosis, a change in clinical status or a change in patient management. However, in about 5% of the listed clinical scenarios, members of the Dutch WGE rated the AUC for echocardiography differently as compared with their American counterparts. Further research is warranted to analyse this decreased external validity

Helping education undergraduates to use appropriate criteria for evaluating accounts of motivation

The aim of the study was to compare students in a control group with those in a treatment group with respect to evaluative comments on psychological accounts of motivation. The treatment group systematically scrutinized the nature and interpretation of evidence that supported different accounts, and the assumptions, logic, coherence and clarity of accounts. Content analysis of 74 scripts (using three categories) showed that the control group students made more assertions than either evidential or evaluative points, whereas the treatment group used evaluative statements as often as they used assertion. The findings provide support for privileging activities that develop understanding of how knowledge might be contested, and suggest a need for further research on pedagogies to serve this end. The idea is considered that such understanding has a pivotal role in the development of critical thinking

TEMPORAL AGGREGATION EFFECTS IN CHOOSING THE OPTIMAL LAG ORDER IN STABLE ARMA MODELS. SOME MONTE CARLO RESULTS.

A crucial aspect of empirical research based on ARIMA(p,q) model is the choice of the appropriate lag order. Several criteria have been used in order to identify the appropriate order of a ARIMA(p,q) process. In this paper we investigate the effects of using a variation of selection criteria under different temporal aggregation levels. We don�t spend our attention in determining the appropriate order but on the effects of using the above selection criteria on the dynamic characteristics (impulse responses) and the forecasting properties of the ARIMA(p,q) process. The conducted Monte Carlo simulation experiments show that the use of temporally aggregated data can affect seriously the impulse responses and the forecasting properties of the ARIMA model.Stable ARMA process, temporal aggregation and stochastic simulation

DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale.

Since DSM-IV was published in 1994, its approach to substance use disorders has come under scrutiny. Strengths were identified (notably, reliability and validity of dependence), but concerns have also arisen. The DSM-5 Substance-Related Disorders Work Group considered these issues and recommended revisions for DSM-5. General concerns included whether to retain the division into two main disorders (dependence and abuse), whether substance use disorder criteria should be added or removed, and whether an appropriate substance use disorder severity indicator could be identified. Specific issues included possible addition of withdrawal syndromes for several substances, alignment of nicotine criteria with those for other substances, addition of biomarkers, and inclusion of nonsubstance, behavioral addictions.This article presents the major issues and evidence considered by the work group, which included literature reviews and extensive new data analyses. The work group recommendations for DSM-5 revisions included combining abuse and dependence criteria into a single substance use disorder based on consistent findings from over 200,000 study participants, dropping legal problems and adding craving as criteria, adding cannabis and caffeine withdrawal syndromes, aligning tobacco use disorder criteria with other substance use disorders, and moving gambling disorders to the chapter formerly reserved for substance-related disorders. The proposed changes overcome many problems, while further studies will be needed to address issues for which less data were available

Sustainability Assessment of indicators for integrated water resources management

The scientific community strongly recommends the adoption of indicators for the evaluation and monitoring of progress towards sustainable development. Furthermore, international organizations consider that indicators are powerful decision-making tools. Nevertheless, the quality and reliability of the indicators depends on the application of adequate and appropriate criteria to assess them. The general objective of this study was to evaluate how indicators related to water use and management perform against a set of sustainability criteria. Our research identified 170 indicators related to water use and management. These indicators were assessed by an international panel of experts that evaluated whether they fulfil the four sustainability criteria: social, economic, environmental, and institutional. We employed an evaluation matrix that classified all indicators according to the DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, States, Impacts and Responses) framework. A pilot study served to test and approve the research methodology before carrying out the full implementation. The findings of the study show that 24 indicators comply with the majority of the sustainability criteria; 59 indicators are bi-dimensional (meaning that they comply with two sustainability criteria); 86 are one-dimensional indicators (fulfilling just one of the four sustainability criteria) and one indicator do not fulfil any of the sustainability criteria.Postprint (author's final draft

Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus

Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system

Supporting Answerers with Feedback in Social Q&A

Prior research has examined the use of Social Question and Answer (Q&A) websites for answer and help seeking. However, the potential for these websites to support domain learning has not yet been realized. Helping users write effective answers can be beneficial for subject area learning for both answerers and the recipients of answers. In this study, we examine the utility of crowdsourced, criteria-based feedback for answerers on a student-centered Q&A website, Brainly.com. In an experiment with 55 users, we compared perceptions of the current rating system against two feedback designs with explicit criteria (Appropriate, Understandable, and Generalizable). Contrary to our hypotheses, answerers disagreed with and rejected the criteria-based feedback. Although the criteria aligned with answerers' goals, and crowdsourced ratings were found to be objectively accurate, the norms and expectations for answers on Brainly conflicted with our design. We conclude with implications for the design of feedback in social Q&A.Comment: Published in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, Article No. 10, London, United Kingdom. June 26 - 28, 201

Assessing Professionalism: A theoretical framework for defining clinical rotation assessment criteria

Although widely accepted as an important graduate competence, professionalism is a challenging outcome to define and assess. Clinical rotations provide an excellent opportunity to develop student professionalism through the use of experiential learning and effective feedback, but without appropriate theoretical frameworks, clinical teachers may find it difficult to identify appropriate learning outcomes. The adage “I know it when I see it” is unhelpful in providing feedback and guidance for student improvement, and criteria that are more specifically defined would help students direct their own development. This study sought first to identify how clinical faculty in one institution currently assess professionalism, using retrospective analysis of material obtained in undergraduate teaching and faculty development sessions. Subsequently, a faculty workshop was held in which a round-table type discussion sought to develop these ideas and identify how professionalism assessment could be improved. The output of this session was a theoretical framework for teaching and assessing professionalism, providing example assessment criteria and ideas for clinical teaching. This includes categories such as client and colleague interaction, respect and trust, recognition of limitations, and understanding of different professional identities. Each category includes detailed descriptions of the knowledge, skills, and behaviors expected of students in these areas. The criteria were determined by engaging faculty in the development of the framework, and therefore they should represent a focused development of criteria already used to assess professionalism, and not a novel and unfamiliar set of assessment guidelines. The faculty-led nature of this framework is expected to facilitate implementation in clinical teaching