Perfectionism and exam performance: The mediating effect of task-approach goals

Perfectionistic strivings are positively correlated with students’ achievement goals and exam performance. However, so far no study has employed a prospective design investigating whether achievement goals mediate the positive relationship between perfectionistic strivings and exam performance. In the present study, 100 university students completed a measure of self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and received a chapter from a textbook to study for 2-4 days. Then they returned to the lab to complete a measure of achievement goals following the 3 x 2 model (Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011) and sit a mock exam testing their knowledge of the chapter. Multiple regressions showed that socially prescribed perfectionism negatively predicted exam performance when the overlap with self-oriented perfectionism was controlled for. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism—a defining indicator of perfectionistic strivings—positively predicted exam performance. Moreover, task-approach goals mediated the positive relationship between self-oriented perfectionism and exam performance. The findings suggest that perfectionistic strivings make students adopt task-approach goals that help them achieve better results on exams

The Grizzly, February 22, 1985

Auto Blaze Cuts Phone Service • New Forensics Society Competing Successfully • All is Well With All\u27s Well Cast • Career Program Scheduled • Students Invited to Presidential Symposium • Pi Gamma Mu Seeks New Members • UC Selected for Ed Project • Bloodmobile Here in March • Nutrition Forum Tuesday • Bears Beat Swarthmore to Finish Season • Baseball Trains for Season and Florida Trip • Carr Puts Teams in Drive • Wellness Week Aimed at Promoting Overall Health • Night on Ice Scheduledhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1134/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, February 15, 1985

USGA Reschedules Election • Japanese Studies Prof. Returns to U.C. • UC Retention Rate Above National Average • Without Reform, Second Election Doomed to Failure • U.C. Contributes to Local Secondary Education: Need for Tutors May Grow • College Students Have Trouble Managing Money, Survey Shows • Campus Life Surveys Possible Displacements • Grapplers Keep Winning: Wiehler Notches 14-second Fall • Senior Matmen Get Last Shot at MAC Title • Ververeli Operates on the Mats for Now • Mers Dunk Dips • Mermaids Win Three, Lose One • UC Grad Writes Book • B-ball Drops Two • Lady Hoopsters\u27 Losing Ways Continuehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1133/thumbnail.jp

Creating and Supporting a Mixed Methods Health Services Research Team

Objective. To use the experience from a health services research evaluation to provide guidance in team development for mixed methods research

Differentiating between viruses and virus species by writing their names correctly

Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly. Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly. Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Following the results of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Ratification Vote held in March 2021, a standard two-part "binomial nomenclature" is now the norm for naming virus species. Adoption of the new nomenclature is still in its infancy; thus, it is timely to reiterate the distinction between "virus" and "virus species" and to provide guidelines for naming and writing them correctly.Peer reviewe

Recent changes to virus taxonomy ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2022)

This article reports the changes to virus taxonomy approved and ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) in March 2022. The entire ICTV was invited to vote on 174 taxonomic proposals approved by the ICTV Executive Committee at its annual meeting in July 2021. All proposals were ratified by an absolute majority of the ICTV members. Of note, the Study Groups have started to implement the new rule for uniform virus species naming that became effective in 2021 and mandates the binomial 'Genus_name species_epithet' format with or without Latinization. As a result of this ratification, the names of 6,481 virus species (more than 60 percent of all species names currently recognized by ICTV) now follow this format.Peer reviewe

Genome-Wide Association Analysis in Asthma Subjects Identifies SPATS2L as a Novel Bronchodilator Response Gene

Bronchodilator response (BDR) is an important asthma phenotype that measures reversibility of airway obstruction by comparing lung function (i.e. FEV1) before and after the administration of a short-acting β2-agonist, the most common rescue medications used for the treatment of asthma. BDR also serves as a test of β2-agonist efficacy. BDR is a complex trait that is partly under genetic control. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BDR, quantified as percent change in baseline FEV1 after administration of a β2-agonist, was performed with 1,644 non-Hispanic white asthmatic subjects from six drug clinical trials: CAMP, LOCCS, LODO, a medication trial conducted by Sepracor, CARE, and ACRN. Data for 469,884 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used to measure the association of SNPs with BDR using a linear regression model, while adjusting for age, sex, and height. Replication of primary P-values was attempted in 501 white subjects from SARP and 550 white subjects from DAG. Experimental evidence supporting the top gene was obtained via siRNA knockdown and Western blotting analyses. The lowest overall combined P-value was 9.7E-07 for SNP rs295137, near the SPATS2L gene. Among subjects in the primary analysis, those with rs295137 TT genotype had a median BDR of 16.0 (IQR = [6.2, 32.4]), while those with CC or TC genotypes had a median BDR of 10.9 (IQR = [5.0, 22.2]). SPATS2L mRNA knockdown resulted in increased β2-adrenergic receptor levels. Our results suggest that SPATS2L may be an important regulator of β2-adrenergic receptor down-regulation and that there is promise in gaining a better understanding of the biological mechanisms of differential response to β2-agonists through GWAS

Stop there's water on the road! Identifying key beliefs guiding people's willingness to drive through flooded waterways

Floods are among the most widespread of natural disasters and exposure to floodwaters increases drowning risk. A leading cause of flood related drowning deaths is driving through flooded waterways. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, a two-phased research program was conducted. Phase 1 (N = 25; Mage = 32.38, SD = 11.46) identified common beliefs about driving through a flooded waterway. Phase 2 (N = 174; Mage = 27.43, SD = 10.76) adopted a cross-sectional design to examine the belief predictors of drivers’ willingness to drive through a flooded waterway. Given differences in consequences due to the depth of water, scenarios of low (road covered in 20 cm of water) and high (road covered in 60 cm of water) risk situations were investigated. A range of beliefs emerged as predicting drivers’ willingness to engage in this unsafe driving behaviour. These included attitudinal beliefs (e.g., sustain vehicle damage, become stuck/stranded), beliefs of social expectations (e.g., pressure from friends, family members, police), and efficacy beliefs (e.g., small distance of water to drive through, presence of signage). The results of the current study support using a Theory of Planned Behaviour belief-based approach to the understanding of risky transport-related aquatic activities. The findings highlight the role that specific key beliefs play in guiding people's willingness to drive through flooded waterways and, in turn, provide possible targets for future interventions to curb this risky and potentially fatal driving behaviour

Changes to virus taxonomy and to the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2021)

This article reports the changes to virus taxonomy approved and ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) in March 2021. The entire ICTV was invited to vote on 290 taxonomic proposals approved by the ICTV Executive Committee at its meeting in October 2020, as well as on the proposed revision of the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature (ICVCN). All proposals and the revision were ratified by an absolute majority of the ICTV members. Of note, ICTV mandated a uniform rule for virus species naming, which will follow the binomial 'genus-species' format with or without Latinized species epithets. The Study Groups are requested to convert all previously established species names to the new format. ICTV has also abolished the notion of a type species, i.e., a species chosen to serve as a name-bearing type of a virus genus. The remit of ICTV has been clarified through an official definition of 'virus' and several other types of mobile genetic elements. The ICVCN and ICTV Statutes have been amended to reflect these changes.Peer reviewe