Medische technologie in de Medische Faculteit te Rotterdam

Rede, uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van Gewoon Hoogleraar in de Medische Technologie aan de Faculteit der Geneeskunde van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, op 14 november 198

Wat een biomechanisch model zo spannend maakt

Afscheidscollege Prof.dr.ir. Chris J. Snijders, Hoogleraar Medische Technologie Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam en Afdelingshoofd Biomedische Natuurkunde en Technologie, Erasmus MC. Uitgesproken 3 november 200

Influence of activities in the comprehensive community sport clubs on the mental health of children : With special reference to the enjoyment

textabstractThis study deals primarily with the stability of the base of the spine. The sacroiliac joints are vulnerable to shear loading on account of their predominantly flat surfaces. This raises the question of what mechanisms are brought into action to prevent dislocation of the sacroiliac joints when they are loaded by the weight of the upper part of the body and by trunk muscle forces. First a model is introduced to compare load transfer in joints with spherical and with flat joint surfaces. Next we consider a biomechanical model for the equilibrium of the sacrum under load, describing a self-bracing effect that protects the sacroiliac joints against shear according to ‘the sacroiliac joint compression theory’, which has been demonstrated in vitro. The model shows joint stability by the application of bending moments and the configuration of the pelvic arch. The model includes a large number of muscles (e.g. the gluteus maximus and piriformis muscles), ligaments (e.g. the sacrotuberous, sacrospinal, and dorsal and interosseous sacroiliac ligaments) as well as the coarse texture and the ridges and grooves of the joint surfaces

The fear of big brother:The potential negative side-effects of proctored exams

Background: Online and blended learning need an appropriate assessment strategy which ensures academic integrity. During the pandemic, many universities have chosen for online proctoring. Although some earlier examples suggest that online proctoring may reduce cheating, the potential side-effects of proctoring are largely unknown. Objectives: Therefore, this study aims to identify the effects of proctoring on students' self-reported temptation to cheat and potentially undesirable side-effects, including test anxiety, perceived exam difficulty, and performance. In addition, we examine which contextual and student characteristics affect test anxiety during online exams. Methods: For this, we collected four waves of survey data throughout a year of teaching during the pandemic at one faculty of a Dutch university, resulting in a total sample of 1760 students within 105 courses. Results and Conclusions: Multi-level analyses showed that while proctoring had no effect on the temptation to cheat, exam difficulty or performance, students reported higher levels of test anxiety. Some learning strategies, internet literacy, access to a reliable technology and a dedicated study space as well as gender and financial stress affect their test anxiety. To conclude, the decision to use online proctoring needs to consider the undesirable side-effect on test anxiety. We discuss practical implications for university administrators, educational designers and teachers to reduce test anxiety.</p

Personalizing a parenting app:parenting-style surveys beat behavioral reading-based models

The present study set out to personalize a digital library aimed at new parents by reordering articles to match users' inferred interests. The interests were inferred from reading behavior as well as parenting styles measured through surveys. As prior research has shown that parenting styles are related to how parents take care of their children, these styles are likely to be related to what content a parent is interested in. The present study compared personalization based on parenting styles against other types of personalization. We conducted a user study with 106 participants, in which we compared the effects of four different approaches of personalization to our users' reading behavior and user experience: a non-personalized baseline, personalization based on reading behavior, personalization based on parenting styles measured through surveys, and a hybrid personalization based on both reading behavior and parenting styles. We found that while the reading behavior was not significantly influenced by different types of personalization, participants had a better user experience with our survey-based approach. They indicated they perceived a higher level of personalization and satisfaction with the system, even though in terms of objective metrics this approach performed worse.Part of Workshop 4: Theory-Informed User Modeling for Tailoring and Personalizing Interfaces - HUMANIZE</p