187,731 research outputs found
Performance in the MRCP(UK) Examination 2003–4: analysis of pass rates of UK graduates in relation to self-declared ethnicity and gender
No full textBackground: Male students and students from ethnic minorities have been reported to underperform in undergraduate medical examinations. We examined the effects of ethnicity and gender on pass rates in UK medical graduates sitting the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians in the United Kingdom [MRCP(UK)] Examination in 2003–4.
Methods: Pass rates for each part of the examination were analysed for differences between graduate groupings based on self-declared ethnicity and gender.
Results: All candidates declared their gender, and 84–90% declared their ethnicity. In all three parts of the examination, white candidates performed better than other ethnic groups (P < 0.001). In the MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 Written Examinations, there was no significant difference in pass rate between male and female graduates, nor was there any interaction between gender and ethnicity. In the Part 2 Clinical Examination (Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills, PACES), women performed better than did men (P < 0.001). Non-white men performed more poorly than expected, relative to white men or non-white women. Analysis of individual station marks showed significant interaction between candidate and examiner ethnicity for performance on communication skills (P = 0.011), but not on clinical skills (P = 0.176). Analysis of overall average marks showed no interaction between candidate gender and the number of assessments made by female examiners (P = 0.151).
Conclusion: The cause of these differences is most likely to be multifactorial, but cannot be readily explained in terms of previous educational experience or differential performance on particular parts of the examination. Potential examiner prejudice, significant only in the cases where there were two non-white examiners and the candidate was non-white, might indicate different cultural interpretations of the judgements being made
Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit.
No full textThis paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool-Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach\u27s alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results.The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20-42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p \u3c 0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p \u3c 0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments
Dot plot of individual exercise enjoyment scores (PACES) and mean (± SD) PACES score post 12 weeks of training for both HIIT and MICT.
No full textDot plot of individual exercise enjoyment scores (PACES) and mean (± SD) PACES score post 12 weeks of training for both HIIT and MICT.</p
Differences in motivation (PACES ratings) for follow-up experiment.
No full textDifferences in motivation (PACES ratings) for follow-up experiment.</p
Results of Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) (arbitrary units).
No full text<p>ITG = Interval Training Group; SSGG = Small-sided Game group; ES = Effect Size.</p><p>Results of Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) (arbitrary units).</p
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Danish version of Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-8)
No full textDanish version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale with eight items (PACES-8). The questionnare is available in Danish.DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25101971...PLEASE USE VERSION 2. THERE ARE ERRORS IN VERSION 1....</p
Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: invariance of the physical activity enjoyment scale (paces) across groups and time
No full textAbstract The purpose of this study was to validate the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) in a sample of older adults. Participants within two different exercise groups were assessed at two time points, 6 months apart. Group and longitudinal invariance was established for a novel, 8-item version of the PACES. The shortened, psychometrically sound measure provides researchers and practitioners an expedited and reliable instrument for assessing the enjoyment of physical activity.</p
- …
