Assessing Academic Advisement Preferences Among Master’s Students: A Modification of the Prescriptive/Developmental Preference Scale

Academic advisement plays a significant role in enrollment retention and degree attainment. Little is known, however, about what master’s students want and need from their advisement experience, as most research on advisement preferences has focused on undergraduate students. The Prescriptive/Developmental Preference Scale (Yarbrough, 2010) was designed to assess students’ academic advisement preferences, particularly as they relate to prescriptive and developmental advisement. The author of the PDPS, which was piloted with undergraduate students, found that the instrument had construct validity issues, especially regarding the Prescriptive construct. This study aimed to modify and expand the PDPS to reliably assess master’s students’ advisement preferences and improve construct validity among the Prescriptive and Developmental scales. A first draft of the Modified PDPS was reviewed and edited by a panel of experts, composed of five academic advisors. Once a final draft of the Modified PDPS had been developed, the researcher distributed the instrument to actively-enrolled master’s students at a southeastern, mid-sized, suburban institution. 176 valid responses were received. Results were analyzed via SmartPLS 4 using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to determine if items loaded on their respective constructs as expected. Multiple analyses were performed before a statistically reliable and valid model was generated. The final recommended model of the Modified PDPS contained 15 items total, with a seven-item Prescriptive scale and eight-item Developmental scale. Analysis of participant responses indicated overall higher preference/agreement with the Prescriptive scale, particularly among master’s students who were enrolled in fully-online programs. Recommendations for continued research, implications for advising practice at the master’s level, and insights regarding instrument validation and measurement of advisement preferences are discussed

Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Research Self-Efficacy in Graduate Students

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a short instrument focusing on research self-efficacy, to be used across disciplines for all graduate students. Using exploratory factor analysis, we provide evidence of the construct validity of the scale, and also describe its internal consistency and predictive validity. Participants were 162 graduate students (15% response rate) at a midsize university in Georgia who were or had been enrolled in graduate courses during the past academic year. Participants responded to the 12 items on the Graduate Student Research Self Efficacy Scale (GRSES) and 8 items of an outcomes expectations (OE) scale. Results suggest that a two factor-model was appropriate. The first factor (41% of the variance) was related to application or implementation of research. The second factor (9% of the variance) was related to acquisition of knowledge in research, early stages or conceptualization of research. The scale showed strong reliability (α = 0.886), and good predictive validity for outcomes expectations of research (r = .423). The overall reliability and predictive validity of the scale are sufficient to recommend the GRSES for future use. Recommendations for item modification or deletion, based on factor analysis results are discussed

Directed conservation of the world's reef sharks and rays

Many shark populations are in decline around the world, with severe ecological and economic consequences. Fisheries management and marine protected areas (MPAs) have both been heralded as solutions. However, the effectiveness of MPAs alone is questionable, particularly for globally threatened sharks and rays (‘elasmobranchs’), with little known about how fisheries management and MPAs interact to conserve these species. Here we use a dedicated global survey of coral reef elasmobranchs to assess 66 fully protected areas embedded within a range of fisheries management regimes across 36 countries. We show that conservation benefits were primarily for reef-associated sharks, which were twice as abundant in fully protected areas compared with areas open to fishing. Conservation benefits were greatest in large protected areas that incorporate distinct reefs. However, the same benefits were not evident for rays or wide-ranging sharks that are both economically and ecologically important while also threatened with extinction. We show that conservation benefits from fully protected areas are close to doubled when embedded within areas of effective fisheries management, highlighting the importance of a mixed management approach of both effective fisheries management and well-designed fully protected areas to conserve tropical elasmobranch assemblages globally

Widespread diversity deficits of coral reef sharks and rays

A global survey of coral reefs reveals that overfishing is driving resident shark species toward extinction, causing diversity deficits in reef elasmobranch (shark and ray) assemblages. Our species-level analysis revealed global declines of 60 to 73% for five common resident reef shark species and that individual shark species were not detected at 34 to 47% of surveyed reefs. As reefs become more shark-depleted, rays begin to dominate assemblages. Shark-dominated assemblages persist in wealthy nations with strong governance and in highly protected areas, whereas poverty, weak governance, and a lack of shark management are associated with depauperate assemblages mainly composed of rays. Without action to address these diversity deficits, loss of ecological function and ecosystem services will increasingly affect human communities

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