Why a position statement on Assessment in Physical Education? The purpose of this AIESEP Position Statement on Assessment in Physical Education (PE) is fourfold: • To advocate internationally for the importance of assessment practices as central to providing meaningful, relevant and worthwhile physical education; • To advise the field of PE about assessment-related concepts informed by research and contemporary practice; • To identify pressing research questions and avenues for new research in the area of PE assessment; • To provide a supporting rationale for colleagues who wish to apply for research funds to address questions about PE assessment or who have opportunities to work with or influence policy makers. The main target groups for this position statement are PE teachers, PE pre-service teachers, PE curriculum officers, PE teacher educators, PE researchers, PE administrators and PE policy makers. How was this position statement created? The AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’ was held from October 18-20 2018, at Fontys University of Applied Sciences in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. The seminar aimed to bring together leading scholars in the field to present and discuss ‘evidence-informed’ views on various topics around PE assessment. It brought together 71 experts from 20 countries (see appendix 2) to share research on PE assessment via keynote lectures and research presentations and to discuss assessment-related issues in interactive sessions. Input from this meeting informed a first draft version of the statement. This first draft was sent to all participants of the specialist seminar for feedback, from which a second draft was created. This draft was presented at the AIESEP International Conference 2019 in Garden City, New York, after which further feedback was collected from participants both on site and through an online survey. The main contributors to the writing of the position statement are mentioned in appendix 1. Approval was granted by the AIESEP Board on May 7th, 2020. Largely in keeping with the main themes of the AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’, this Position Statement is divided into the following sections: Assessment Literacy; Accountability & Policy; Instructional Alignment; Assessment for Learning; Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) and Continuing Professional Development; Digital Technology in PE Assessment. These sections are preceded by a brief overview of research data on PE. The statement concludes with directions for future research.
DOCUMENT
(Inter)nationaal is er discussie over de vraag of auditieve verwerkingsproblemen (AVP) gezien moeten worden als een unieke klinische diagnose en over de meest geschikte diagnostisering en verwijzing van kinderen in deze doelgroep. Binnen de Nederlandse Audiologische Centra (AC) wordt mede hierdoor verschillend omgegaan met kinderen met zogenaamde onverklaarde luisterproblemen.Het doel van het huidige document is om professionals handvatten te bieden bij het identificeren, diagnosticeren en behandelen van kinderen met luisterproblemen. Het ‘Dutch Position Statement Kinderen met Luisterproblemen’ is ontwikkeld op basis van het huidige wetenschappelijke bewijs omtrent luisterproblemen en op basis van bijeenkomsten gehouden met professionals. Over de volgende 9 statements is consensus bereikt onder professionals van de Nederlandse Audiologische Centra:Definitie:(1) De doelgroep ‘kinderen met luisterproblemen’ is geen unieke en aantoonbare klinische entiteit.(2) De problemen van kinderen met luisterproblemen zijn multimodaal.(3) De symptomen die kinderen met luisterproblemen vertonen kunnen ook voorkomen bij kinderen met andere ontwikkelingsstoornissen, zoals AD(H)D, TOS, dyslexie en leerstoornissen.Signalering en verwijzing:(4) Na signalering van luisterproblemen kan worden doorverwezen naar een multidisciplinair centrum.Diagnostiek:(5) Bij het diagnosticeren van een kind met luisterproblemen zijn minimaal een klinisch- fysicus audioloog, logopedist en gedragswetenschapper betrokken.(6) Luisterproblemen worden in eerste instantie in kaart gebracht met behulp van een anamnese (hulpvraag centraal) en indien beschikbaar een gevalideerde vragenlijst.(7) Bij kinderen met luisterproblemen wordt naast het toon- en spraakaudiogram altijd een spraak-in-ruis test afgenomen.(8) De diagnostische procedure bij luisterproblemen start vanuit een breed ontwikkelingsperspectief.Behandeling:(9) Bij kinderen met luisterproblemen is de interventie gericht op de hulpvraag en staat het handelingsgericht werken centraal.Dit document informeert professionals in Nederland, die te maken hebben met kinderen die worden aangemeld met klachten met betrekking tot het luisteren bij een goed perifeer gehoor over het huidige beschikbare bewijs en over het gezamenlijke standpunt hierover in Nederland.
DOCUMENT
Inter)nationally there is discussion about whether auditory processing disorders (APD) should be seen as a unique clinical diagnosis and what is the most appropriate diagnosis and referral of children in this target group. In this context, the Dutch Audiological Centres (AC) have different care pathways for children with so-called unexplained listening difficulties. The purpose of the current document is to provide professionals with tools to identify, diagnose and treat children with listening difficulties. The Dutch Position Statement Children with Listening Difficulties has been developed based on current scientific evidence of listening difficulties, and based on meetings held with professionals. Professionals in the Dutch Audiological Centres have reached a consensus with the following 9 statements: Definition: (1) The target group 'Children with listening difficulties' is not a unique and demonstrable clinical entity. (2) The problems of children with listening difficulties are multimodal. (3) The symptoms of children with listening difficulties may also occur in children with other developmental disorders such as AD(H)D, DLD, dyslexia and learning disorders. Detection and referral: (4) After detection of listening difficulties, children can be referred to a multidisciplinary centre. Diagnostics: (5) When diagnosing a child with listening difficulties, an audiologist, a speech language therapist and a behavioral scientist must be involved. (6) Listening difficulties are initially mapped using patient history (with client-centred focus) and, if available, a validated questionnaire. (7) In the case of children with listening difficulties, a speech-in-noise test is always carried out in addition to the pure tone and speech audiometry (8) The diagnostic procedure for listening difficulties starts from a broad perspective on development. Therapy: (9) For children with listening difficulties, intervention is focused on the client’s needs and focuses on action-oriented practice. This document informs professionals in the Netherlands, who are working with children who are referred because of listening difficulties in the absence of hearing loss, about the current evidence available and about the consensus in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
Kenniscentrum NoorderRuimte doet praktijkgericht onderzoek naar de gebouwde omgeving in Noord- Nederland. Daarbij richten wij ons op de thema’s aardbevingen, krimp, duurzaamheid en gezondheid en welzijn. Onze aanpak is integraal. Onze lectoren, docent-onderzoekers en studenten verbinden de vakgebieden architectuur, bouwkunde, civiele techniek, facility management en vastgoed. Dat doen wij altijd samen met de praktijk.
DOCUMENT
This positioning statement is written for the Centre of Expertise Healthy Ageing (CoE HA) and allied schools within the Hanze University of Applied Sciences. As focus for the coming years, the CoE HA has identified three themes, as well as three so-called ‘enablers’, i.e. approaches, methods and tools through which the themes can be developed concretely and implemented practically.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
DOCUMENT
Future work processes are going to change in several aspects. The working population (at least in Western European countries) is decreasing, while average age of employees increases. Their productivity is key to continuity in sectors like healthcare and manufacturing. Health and safety monitoring, combined with prevention measures must contribute to longer, more healthy and more productive working careers. The ‘tech-optimist’ approach to increase productivity is by means of automation and robotization, supported by IT, AI and heavy capital investments. Unfortunately, that kind of automation has not yet fulfilled its full promise as productivity enhancer as the pace of automation is significantly slower than anticipated and what productivity is gained -for instance in smart industry and healthcare- is considered to be ‘zero-sum’ as flexibility is equally lost (Armstrong et al., 2023). Simply ‘automating’ tasks too often leads to ‘brittle technology’ that is useless in unforeseen operational conditions or a changing reality. As such, it is unlikely to unlock high added-value. In healthcare industry we see “hardly any focus on research into innovations that save time to treat more patients.” (Gupta Strategists, 2021). Timesaving, more than classic productivity, should be the leading argument in rethinking the possibilities of human-technology collaboration, as it allows us to reallocate our human resources towards ‘care’, ’craft’ and ’creativity’.
DOCUMENT
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) (ie, progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms [ECG], hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms) and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: 1) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), 2) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiologic mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and 3) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown etiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making
DOCUMENT
VIDEO: Video recording of the AIESEP specialist seminar “Future Directions in PE Assessment” from October 18-20, 2018. Content of the seminar: Given the growing research interest in PE-assessment, the complexities PE-teachers meet in planning and carrying out assessment, and the increasing emphasis placed on accountability within education at large, we aim to draw up an AIESEP Position Statement on PE Assessment based on the specialist seminar. Therefore, a large part of the program will be devoted to various forms of expert group discussion, in addition to the presentation of research, projects and initiatives on assessment in PE and PETE
DOCUMENT
