Behavior Domains in Theory and in Practice

The concept of a behavior domain is a reasonable and essential foundation for psychometric work based on true score theory, the linear model of common factor analysis, and the nonlinear models of item response theory. Investigators applying these models to test data generally treat the true scores or factors or traits as abstractive psychological attributes: common properties of the items, possibly with some inconsistency between their practice and their theoretical statements. A countably infinite item domain defines an attribute uniquely, and a function of the domain item scores gives an identified measure of it, to be estimated from a finite set of item scores, with a defined error of measurement. In test development the investigator must consider and justify the assumption that an item domain exists for the specific measurement application and is large enough to be treated as infinite for that application

Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses

Principles for reporting analyses using structural equation modeling are reviewed, with the goal of supplying readers with complete and accurate information. It is recommended that every report give a detailed justification of the model used, along with plausible alternatives and an account of identifiability. Nonnormality and missing data problems should also be addressed. A complete set of parameters and their standard errors is desirable, and it will often be convenient to supply the correlation matrix and discrepancies, as well as goodness-of-fit indices, so that readers can exercise independent critical judgment. A survey of fairly representative studies compares recent practice with the principles of reporting recommended here

University student engagement inventory (USEI): psychometric properties

Academic engagement describes students’ investment in academic learning and achievement and is an important indicator of students’ adjustment to university life, particularly in the first year. A tridimensional conceptualization of academic engagement has been accepted (behavioral, emotional and cognitive dimensions). This paper tests the dimensionality, internal consistency reliability and invariance of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI) taking into consideration both gender and the scientific area of graduation. A sample of 908 Portuguese first-year university students was considered. Good evidence of reliability has been obtained with ordinal alpha and omega values. Confirmatory factor analysis substantiates the theoretical dimensionality proposed (second-order latent factor), internal consistency reliability evidence indicates good values and the results suggest measurement invariance across gender and the area of graduation. The present study enhances the role of the USEI regarding the lack of consensus on the dimensionality and constructs delimitation of academic engagement.Jorge Sinval received funding from the William James Center for Research, Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT UID/PSI/04810/2013). Leandro S. Almeida and Joana R. Casanova received funding from CIEd – Research Centre on Education, projects UID/CED/1661/2013 and UID/CED/1661/2016, Institute of Education, University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT. Joana R. Casanova received funding from the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) as a Doctoral Grant, under grant agreement number SFRH/BD/117902/2016.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome