Reliability and Criterion Validity of Knee Frontal Plane Projection Angles Measured Using the Technique Application

Context: Abnormal knee frontal plane projection angles (FPPA) during movement have been associated with patellofemoral pain (PFP). As such, clinicians are interested in valid and reliable instruments suitable for broad-based clinical use that allow them to objectively measure such variables. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the criterion validity and reliability of knee FPPA measures obtained by clinicians using a free tablet application called Technique. Design: validity/reliability study Methods: To examine validity, the same raters measured ten, two-dimensional criterion reference angles at the first testing session. To examine reliability, the knee FPPA of sixteen subjects was measured by 6 raters (3 physical therapists and 3 student physical therapists) on two separate occasions while performing a single-limb stepdown task. Validity was investigated by calculating the 95% limits of agreement (LA), mean absolute differences, and Bland-Altman plots. Reliability was examined by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the standard error of measure (SEM). Results: For validity, the mean absolute difference between rater and criterion reference angle measures ranged from 0.20 to 0.90 degrees. 95% of expected errors between rater and criterion reference angle measures were 2.04 degrees or less. For reliability, the ICC values for inter- and intrarater reliability were excellent ranging from 0.994 to 0.998 with SEM ranging from 0.44 to 0.84 degrees. Conclusions: These findings indicate that knee FPPA measures obtained during a single-limb stepdown task using the Technique tablet application are valid and reliable, and suitable for clinical use

Gender, sexuality and the English language

The field of language and gender has changed considerably over the past few decades, moving from the biologically-defined categorization of sex common in the 1960s and 1970s towards the more socially-constructed understanding of gender that is common today. This expanded understanding of ‘gender’ has allowed researchers to explore the linguistic construction and reification of sexualities and trans identities, as well as multiple masculinities and femininities

Measuring Implicit and Explicit Acceptability of Reinforcement Versus Punishment Interventions with Teachers Working in ABA Versus Mainstream Schools

This research aimed to develop the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of treatment acceptability and to assess teachers’ acceptability of reinforcement and punishment interventions in the presence of “good” and “bad” behaviors. Participants included 15 teachers trained in ABA (ABATs) who worked with children with developmental disabilities, and 15 teachers trained in mainstream primary education (MTs) who worked with typically developing children. On the IRAP, the ABAT group showed proreinforcement biases for all behaviors, while MTs showed a proreinforcement bias for good behavior but a propunishment bias for bad behavior. On explicit measures of acceptability, although both groups showed proreinforcement and antipunishment biases, the ABATs rated reinforcement as significantly more acceptable than the MTs; the ratings of punishment did not differ across the two groups. The research provides support for the IRAP as a measure of treatment acceptability