135 research outputs found

    Using Repeated Oral Assisted Reading To Improve The Fluency Of Students With Learning Disabilities

    Get PDF
    This study explores the research question: How much does repeated reading improve the reading rate, accuracy, and prosody of students with learning disabilities in fifth grade? Three key topics: learning disabilities, fluency, and repeated reading are discussed. The author was greatly influenced by Timothy Rasinski and his work in the area of fluency. Repeated Oral Assisted Reading was administered to monitor and document accuracy, rate, and prosody utilizing both daily instructional-level reading probes and monthly grade-level reading probes as well as prosodic reading rubrics and a daily journal. The improvement in rate was compared to scores on nationally normed fluency assessments. Findings suggest that Repeated Oral Assisted Reading is an effective intervention for improving both reading rate and prosody in students with learning disabilities

    Proficiency Test of Four Salmonella Antibody ELISA-Tests for their Harmonization

    Get PDF
    The paper describes the necessity to only use tests for national salmonella monitoring and reduction programmes that are “harmonized”, i.e. that produce at least at herd level the same results. Four in Germany licensed tests were audited in a proficiency test by four independent and neutral laboratories. The test was designed rather to harmonize the tests, if necessary, than to evaluate the single tests. The methods used to provide a high credibility for the proficiency test’s outcome are explained. The conclusion of the ring test is that three of the four tests can be used for the salmonella monitoring programme in Germany as long as not single results are compared to each other, but the results of sets of sera are used for the herd categorization for their risk level of introducing Salmonella spec. into the food chain

    Soldier Load Carriage, Injuries, Rehabilitation and Physical Conditioning: An International Approach

    Get PDF
    Soldiers are often required to carry heavy loads that can exceed 45 kg. The physiological costs and biomechanical responses to these loads, whilst varying with the contexts in which they are carried, have led to soldier injuries. These injuries can range from musculoskeletal injuries (e.g., joint/ligamentous injuries and stress fractures) to neurological injuries (e.g., paresthesias), and impact on both the soldier and the army in which they serve. Following treatment to facilitate initial recovery from injuries, soldiers must be progressively reconditioned for load carriage. Optimal conditioning and reconditioning practices include load carriage sessions with a frequency of one session every 10–14 days in conjunction with a program of both resistance and aerobic training. Speed of march and grade and type of terrain covered are factors that can be adjusted to manipulate load carriage intensity, limiting the need to adjust load weight alone. Factors external to the load carriage program, such as other military duties, can also impart physical loading and must be considered as part of any load carriage conditioning/reconditioning program

    Looking Back, Looking Forward: Progress and Prospect for Spatial Demography

    Get PDF
    In 2011 a specialist meeting on the “Future Directions in Spatial Demography” was held in Santa Barbara, California (Matthews, Goodchild, & Janelle, 2012).1 This specialist meeting was the capstone to a multi-year National Institutes of Health training grant that had supported workshops in advanced spatial analysis methods increasing used by population scientists.2 Early-career scholars who had participated in the training workshops and senior demographers and geographers drawn from across the United States participated in the specialist meeting.3 The application process to attend the 2011 meeting, required that each of the forty-one attendees submit a statement that reviewed challenges and identifed new directions for spatial demography, including gaps in current knowledge regarding innovations in geospatial data, spatial statistical methods, and the integration of data and models to enhance the science of spatial demography in population and health research. Reading again some of the ruminations of these scholars is an interesting exercise in its own right. The level of optimism back in 2011 was high, and especially regarding anticipated changes in computational capacity, leveraging big data (including volunteered geographic information), developments in data systems (including new data high resolution data products and online resources such as multi-scale map interfaces and dashboards), and in methods such as time–space models, agent-based models, microsimulation, and small-area estimation. There were also several challenges identifed including, but not limited to, study designs, data integration, data validation, confdentiality, non-representative data, historic data, defnitions of place, residential selection and mobility as well as two overarching challenges related to the role and contribution of spatial demographers in interdisciplinary population and health research, and many, many comments on training issues. Substantively the attendees research focused on all forms of interaction between people and place (and the reciprocal relations between the people in social, built, and physical environment contexts) covering the gamut of demographic processes from reproductive health to mortality, though with perhaps an overrepresentation of researchers in areas related to population and environment research, racial and residential segregation, and migration.The R25 Training Grant was funded through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD 5R-25 HD057002; Principal Investigator: Stephen A. Matthews).

    Looking Back, Looking Forward: Progress and Prospect for Spatial Demography

    Get PDF
    In 2011 a specialist meeting on the “Future Directions in Spatial Demography” was held in Santa Barbara, California (Matthews, Goodchild, & Janelle, 2012).1 This specialist meeting was the capstone to a multi-year National Institutes of Health training grant that had supported workshops in advanced spatial analysis methods increasing used by population scientists.2 Early-career scholars who had participated in the training workshops and senior demographers and geographers drawn from across the United States participated in the specialist meeting.3 The application process to attend the 2011 meeting, required that each of the forty-one attendees submit a statement that reviewed challenges and identifed new directions for spatial demography, including gaps in current knowledge regarding innovations in geospatial data, spatial statistical methods, and the integration of data and models to enhance the science of spatial demography in population and health research. Reading again some of the ruminations of these scholars is an interesting exercise in its own right. The level of optimism back in 2011 was high, and especially regarding anticipated changes in computational capacity, leveraging big data (including volunteered geographic information), developments in data systems (including new data high resolution data products and online resources such as multi-scale map interfaces and dashboards), and in methods such as time–space models, agent-based models, microsimulation, and small-area estimation. There were also several challenges identifed including, but not limited to, study designs, data integration, data validation, confdentiality, non-representative data, historic data, defnitions of place, residential selection and mobility as well as two overarching challenges related to the role and contribution of spatial demographers in interdisciplinary population and health research, and many, many comments on training issues. Substantively the attendees research focused on all forms of interaction between people and place (and the reciprocal relations between the people in social, built, and physical environment contexts) covering the gamut of demographic processes from reproductive health to mortality, though with perhaps an overrepresentation of researchers in areas related to population and environment research, racial and residential segregation, and migration.The R25 Training Grant was funded through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD 5R-25 HD057002; Principal Investigator: Stephen A. Matthews).
    corecore