P. Adam Kelly

Despite the public health implications of self‐neglect, no tool exists for characterizing this condition. Self‐neglecters often have no caregivers or surrogates to interview regarding the neglect and are often too cognitively impaired to provide valid self‐reports. In response to this need, researchers from the Consortium for Research in Elder Self‐neglect of Texas (CREST) collaborated with other experts in the field of elder self‐neglect to design the Self‐neglect Severity Scale (SSS). The SSS assesses three domains of self‐neglect (hygiene, functioning, and environment) and relies on observational ratings assigned by trained observers. After pilot testing and revision, the SSS was field tested in the homes of subjects who had been reported to and substantiated by Texas Adult Protective Services (APS) as self‐neglecting and compared with results of subjects recruited from a local geriatric clinic who were reported to APS but had no history of self‐neglect. The first field test demonstrated that the SSS could distinguish elderly self‐neglecters from community dwellers who do not self‐neglect. The SSS exhibited adequate scale reliability (Cronbach alpha) and correlation with case status. Interrater reliability also appeared adequate, although sensitivity and specificity fell below the conventional acceptable range. Future methods are proposed for refining the SSS to improve its use as the benchmark for identifying elder self‐neglect.

Powers, Burstein, Chodorow, Fowles, and Kukich (2002) suggested that automated essay scoring (AES) may benefit from the use of “general” scoring models designed to score essays irrespective of the prompt for which an essay was written. They reasoned that such models may enhance score credibility by signifying that an AES system measures the same writing characteristics across all essays. They reported empirical evidence that general scoring models performed nearly as well in agreeing with human readers as did prompt-specific models, the “status quo” for most AES systems. In this study, general and prompt-specific models were again compared, but this time, general models performed as well as or better than prompt-specific models. Moreover, general models measured the same writing characteristics across all essays, while prompt-specific models measured writing characteristics idiosyncratic to the prompt. Further comparison of model performance across two different writing tasks and writing assessment programs bolstered the case for general models.

Background: Having recently introduced team learning into the preclinical medical curriculum, evidence of the relative impact of this instructional method on in-class learner engagement was sought. Purpose: To compare patterns of engagement behaviors among learners in class sessions across 3 distinct instructional methods: lecture, problem-based learning (PBL), and team learning. Methods: Trained observers used the STROBE classroom observation tool to measure learner engagement in 7 lecture, 4 PBL, and 3 team learning classrooms over a 12-month period. Proportions of different types of engagement behaviors were compared using chi-square. Results: In PBL and team learning, the amount of learner-to-learner engagement was similar and much greater than in lecture, where most engagement was of the learner-to-instructor and self-engagement types. Also, learner-to-instructor engagement appeared greater in team learning than in PBL. Conclusions: Observed engagement behaviors confirm the potential of team learning...