Redesigning the Future of Experiential Learning

In response to the call for more work-ready graduates, many academic programs have looked toward experiential learning to close the gap between theory and practice. Rather than sending students off campus, we have chosen instead to create an on-campus experience consisting of a series of two credit courses. Each course is the outcome of a collaborative process that relies on the expertise and experience of industry professionals who help develop and ultimately deliver a customized learning experience. These activity-based, guided learning experiences provide an inside look at how core knowledge can be applied to real work processes and problems

Genetic Testing to Inform Epilepsy Treatment Management From an International Study of Clinical Practice

IMPORTANCE: It is currently unknown how often and in which ways a genetic diagnosis given to a patient with epilepsy is associated with clinical management and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how genetic diagnoses in patients with epilepsy are associated with clinical management and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between March 18, 2016, and August 3, 2020, with outcomes reported between May and November 2020. The study setting included a commercial genetic testing laboratory and multicenter clinical practices. Patients with epilepsy, regardless of sociodemographic features, who received a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant were included in the study. Case report forms were completed by all health care professionals. EXPOSURES: Genetic test results. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical management changes after a genetic diagnosis (ie, 1 P/LP variant in autosomal dominant and X-linked diseases; 2 P/LP variants in autosomal recessive diseases) and subsequent patient outcomes as reported by health care professionals on case report forms. RESULTS: Among 418 patients, median (IQR) age at the time of testing was 4 (1-10) years, with an age range of 0 to 52 years, and 53.8% (n = 225) were female individuals. The mean (SD) time from a genetic test order to case report form completion was 595 (368) days (range, 27-1673 days). A genetic diagnosis was associated with changes in clinical management for 208 patients (49.8%) and usually (81.7% of the time) within 3 months of receiving the result. The most common clinical management changes were the addition of a new medication (78 [21.7%]), the initiation of medication (51 [14.2%]), the referral of a patient to a specialist (48 [13.4%]), vigilance for subclinical or extraneurological disease features (46 [12.8%]), and the cessation of a medication (42 [11.7%]). Among 167 patients with follow-up clinical information available (mean [SD] time, 584 [365] days), 125 (74.9%) reported positive outcomes, 108 (64.7%) reported reduction or elimination of seizures, 37 (22.2%) had decreases in the severity of other clinical signs, and 11 (6.6%) had reduced medication adverse effects. A few patients reported worsening of outcomes, including a decline in their condition (20 [12.0%]), increased seizure frequency (6 [3.6%]), and adverse medication effects (3 [1.8%]). No clinical management changes were reported for 178 patients (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that genetic testing of individuals with epilepsy may be materially associated with clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams

Reproducibility Project: Psychology

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available

Data from: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

This record contains the underlying research data for the publication "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" and the full-text is available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5257Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams