Development and Psychometric Properties of the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale

The purpose was to describe the development and psychometric properties of the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay scale. The authors developed an admission essay question and rating scale designed to provide information about applicants’ emotional intelligence (EI). Content validity, convergent validity, interrater reliability, and internal consistency were established. The scale was also examined to determine if it could discriminate between students with and without professional behavior problems in the academic and fieldwork settings. Content validity was found to be high by a panel of three experts in EI (content validity index = 1.0). Convergent validity with the Assessing Emotions Scale was moderate (r = .46, p \u3c .02). Interrater reliability between two trained faculty raters was high (ICC = .91, p \u3c .000). Internal consistency of the scale was high with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95. This version of the scale was not able to discriminate between students with and without professional behavior problems. The moderate to strong psychometric properties suggest that the EI Admission Essay Scale has the ability to provide information about applicants’ EI. The wording of the essay question must be modified to better instruct applicants to address interpersonal conflict

Variants in PRKAR1B cause a neurodevelopmental disorder with autism spectrum disorder, apraxia, and insensitivity to pain

Purpose We characterize the clinical and molecular phenotypes of six unrelated individuals with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder who carry heterozygous missense variants of the PRKAR1B gene, which encodes the R1 beta subunit of the cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA). Methods Variants of PRKAR1B were identified by single- or trio-exome analysis. We contacted the families and physicians of the six individuals to collect phenotypic information, performed in vitro analyses of the identified PRKAR1B-variants, and investigated PRKAR1B expression during embryonic development. Results Recent studies of large patient cohorts with neurodevelopmental disorders found significant enrichment of de novo missense variants in PRKAR1B. In our cohort, de novo origin of the PRKAR1B variants could be confirmed in five of six individuals, and four carried the same heterozygous de novo variant c.1003C>T (p.Arg335Trp; NM_001164760). Global developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, and apraxia/dyspraxia have been reported in all six, and reduced pain sensitivity was found in three individuals carrying the c.1003C>T variant. PRKAR1B expression in the brain was demonstrated during human embryonal development. Additionally, in vitro analyses revealed altered basal PKA activity in cells transfected with variant-harboring PRKAR1B expression constructs. Conclusion Our study provides strong evidence for a PRKAR1B-related neurodevelopmental disorder

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health