The present study aimed to develop a football-specific self-report instrument measuring self-regulated learning in the context of daily practice, which can be used to monitor the extent to which players take responsibility for their own learning. Development of the instrument involved six steps: 1. Literature review based on Zimmerman's (2006) theory of self-regulated learning, 2. Item generation, 3. Item validation, 4. Pilot studies, 5. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and 6. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The instrument was tested for reliability and validity among 204 elite youth football players aged 13-16 years (Mage = 14.6; s = 0.60; 123 boys, 81 girls). The EFA indicated that a five-factor model fitted the observed data best (reflection, evaluation, planning, speaking up, and coaching). However, the CFA showed that a three-factor structure including 22 items produced a satisfactory model fit (reflection, evaluation, and planning; non-normed fit index [NNFI] = 0.96, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.95, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.067). While the self-regulation processes of reflection, evaluation, and planning are strongly related and fit well into one model, other self-regulated learning processes seem to be more individually determined. In conclusion, the questionnaire developed in this study is considered a reliable and valid instrument to measure self-regulated learning among elite football players.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient participation and goal setting appear to be difficult in daily physiotherapy practice, and practical methods are lacking. An existing patient-specific instrument, Patient-Specific Complaints (PSC), was therefore optimized into a new Patient Specific Goal-setting method (PSG). The aims of this study were to examine the feasibility of the PSG in daily physiotherapy practice, and to explore the potential impact of the new method. Methods: We conducted a process evaluation within a non-controlled intervention study. Community-based physiotherapists were instructed on how to work with the PSG in three group training sessions. The PSG is a six-step method embedded across the physiotherapy process, in which patients are stimulated to participate in the goal-setting process by: identifying problematic activities, prioritizing them, scoring their abilities, setting goals, planning and evaluating. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected among patients and physiotherapists by recording consultations and assessing patient files, questionnaires and written reflection reports. Results: Data were collected from 51 physiotherapists and 218 patients, and 38 recordings and 219 patient files were analysed. The PSG steps were performed as intended, but the ‘setting goals’ and ‘planning treatment’ steps were not performed in detail. The patients and physiotherapists were positive about the method, and the physiotherapists perceived increased patient participation. They became aware of the importance of engaging patients in a dialogue, instead of focusing on gathering information. The lack of integration in the electronic patient system was a major barrier for optimal use in practice. Although the self-reported actual use of the PSG, i.e. informing and involving patients, and client-centred competences had improved, this was not completely confirmed by the objectively observed behaviour. Conclusion: The PSG is a feasible method and tends to have impact on increasing patient participation in the goal-setting process. However, its full potential for shared goal setting has not been utilized yet. More implementation effort is needed to achieve the required behaviour change and a truly client-centred attitude, to make physiotherapists totally ready for shared goal setting.
DOCUMENT
De PDCA- of Demingcyclus is het hart van de kwaliteitskunde en heeft haar nut bewezen. Het is echter geen panacee, datin alle culturen en op alle tijden even bruikbaar is. Met nanme in andere dan westerse culturen in tijden van snelle veranderingen voldoet Plan-Do-Check-Act niet.
DOCUMENT
Learning activities in a makerspace are hands-on and characterized by design and inquiry. Evaluation is needed both for learners and their coaches in order to effectively guide the learning process of the children and for feedback on the effectiveness of the after-school maker activities. Due to its constructionist nature, learning in a makerspace requires specific forms of evaluation. In this paper we describe the development of an instrument that facilitates and captures reflection on the activities that children undertook in a library makerspace. Our aim is to capture learning in this context with multiple instruments: analysis of the artifacts that are made, observation of hands-on activities and interviews - which all are time consuming methods. Hence, we developed an easy to use tool for self-evaluation of maker learner activities for children. We build on the design of a visual instrument used for learning by design and inquiry in primary education. The findings and results are transferable to (formative) assessment and evaluation of learning activities by learners in other types of education and specific in maker education.
DOCUMENT
In dit hoofdstuk beschrijf ik een situatie uit de begeleidingspraktijk die niet illustreert hoe het hoort, maar beschrijft hoe het gaat. Of beter: hoe het eraan toe kan gaan, want elke situatie is anders. Ik bespreek ook theorie die houvast kan bieden voor de binnenkant van organisatiecoaching. Conceptuele verheldering van die binnenkant vind ik van belang voor de ontwikkeling van het vak. Daarbij laat ik me inspireren door de beroemde uitspraak van Lewin: ‘niets is zo praktisch als een goede theorie’. Mijn zoekvraag in dit hoofdstuk is hoe de binnenkant van ons vak zich op een voor professionals bruikbare manier laat conceptualiseren. Het volledige boek kan besteld kan worden via info@kloosterhof.nl
MULTIFILE
Description: The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS or NPAD) is a questionnaire aiming to quantify neck pain and disability.1 It is a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with any type of neck pain, of any duration, with or without injury.1,2 It consists of 20 items: three related to pain intensity, four related to emotion and cognition, four related to mobility of the neck, eight related to activity limitations and participation restrictions and one on medication.1,3 Patients respond to each item on a 0 to 5 visual analogue scale of 10 cm. There is also a nine-item short version.4 Feasibility: The NPDS is published and available online (https://mountainphysiotherapy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Neck-Pain-and-Disability-Scale.pdf).1 The NPDS is an easy to use questionnaire that can be completed within 5 to 8 minutes.1,5 There is no training needed to administer the instrument but its validity is compromised if the questionnaire must be read to the patient.2 Higher scores indicate higher severity (0 for normal functioning to 5 for the worst possible situation ‘your’ pain problem has caused you).2 The total score is the sum of scores on the 20 items (0 to 100).1 The maximum acceptable number of missing answers is three (15%).4 Two studies found a minimum important change of 10 points (sensitivity 0.93; specificity 0.83) and 11.5 points (sensibility 0.74; specificity 0.70), respectively.6,7 The NPDS is available in English, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Hindi, Iranian, Korean, Turkish, Japanese and Thai. Reliability and validity: Two systematic reviews have evaluated the clinimetric properties of 11 of the translated versions.5,8 The Finnish, German and Italian translations were particularly recommended for use in clinical practice. Face validity was established and content validity was confirmed by an adequate reflection of all aspects of neck pain and disability.1,8 Regarding structural validity, the NPDS is a multidimensional scale, with moderate evidence that the NPDS has a three-factor structure (with explained variance ranging from 63 to 78%): neck dysfunction related to general activities; neck pain and neck-specific function; and cognitive-emotional-behavioural functioning. 4,5,9 A recent overview of four systematic reviews found moderate-quality evidence of high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.93 for the various factors).10 Excellent test-retest reliability was found (ICC of 0.97); however, the studies were considered to be of low quality.3,10 Construct validity (hypotheses-testing) seems adequate when the NPDS is compared with the Neck Disability Index and the Global Assessment of Change with moderate to strong correlations (r = 0.52 to 0.86), based on limited moderate-quality studies.3,11,12 One systematic review reported good responsiveness to change in patients (r = 0.59).12
DOCUMENT
Protocollair gestuurde zorg en individuele afstemming van verpleegkundige zorg lijken op gespannen voet te staan met elkaar, maar is dit ook zo? In de evidence-based practice (EBP) zijn drie componenten belangrijk voor een zorgvuldige besluitvorming: bewijs uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek, kennis over best practices en kennis over voorkeuren en waarden van zorgvragers. Veel belang wordt toegekend aan bewijs uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat vooral zichtbaar is in de toepassing in richtlijnen en protocollen. In de huidige regelgerichte zorg ligt veel nadruk op het naleven van die protocollen, veel minder aandacht gaat uit naar het afstemmen op de individuele voorkeuren van de patiënt.
DOCUMENT
