Many health education programs use progress tests to evaluate students’ progress in learning and to identify possible gaps in the curricula. The tests are typically longitudinal and feedback-oriented. Although many benefits of the progress test have been described in the literature, we argue that the acclaimed facilitation of deeper learning and better retention of knowledge appear questionable. We therefore propose an innovative way of presenting both the test itself and the study process for the test: a real-time-strategy game with in-game challenges, both individual and in teams.
The objective of this study is to investigate the heart rate (HR) accuracy measured at the wrist with the photoplethysmography (PPG) technique with a Fitbit Charge 2 (Fitbit Inc) in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury, how the activity intensity affects the HR accuracy, and whether this HR accuracy is affected by lesion level.
MULTIFILE
Background: The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods: Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results: Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions: For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.