guidelines as topic

指南作为主题
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    许多研究已经调查了健康的饮食和营养素。各国政府和科学家以通俗易懂的方式向公众传达了他们的发现,这在实现公民福祉方面发挥了关键作用。一些国家已经公布了饮食参考摄入量(DRI),虽然一些学术组织提供了关于饮食方法的科学证据,比如传统饮食。最近,引入了更多用户友好的方法;健康星级评级系统和优化的Nutri密集膳食是澳大利亚和日本的例子,分别。这两个组织都采用了一种结合轻推的新颖方法。这篇综述总结了有关食品政策的科学交流,指导方针,以及日本和其他国家的新方法。在食品政策部分,我们讨论了政府发布的DRIs和基于食品的指南的利弊。众所周知的饮食方法,比如地中海饮食,北欧饮食,日本传统饮食,和《饮食柳叶刀》指南,也进行了审查。最后,我们讨论了未来的科学交流方法,比如轻推。
    Numerous studies have investigated healthy diets and nutrients. Governments and scientists have communicated their findings to the public in an easy-to-understand manner, which has played a critical role in achieving citizens\' well-being. Some countries have published dietary reference intakes (DRIs), whereas some academic organizations have provided scientific evidence on dietary methods, such as traditional diets. Recently, more user-friendly methods have been introduced; the Health Star Rating system and Optimized Nutri-Dense Meals are examples from Australia and Japan, respectively. Both organizations adopt a novel approach that incorporates nudges. This review summarizes the science communication regarding food policies, guidelines, and novel methods in Japan and other countries. In the food policies section, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the DRIs and food-based guidelines published by the government. Dietary methods widely known, such as The Mediterranean diet, Nordic diet, Japanese traditional diet, and the EAT-Lancet guidelines, were also reviewed. Finally, we discussed future methods of science communications, such as nudge.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:本研究旨在根据国际组织的指南研究工作场所大流行控制的国际措施,以借鉴其经验。
    方法:我们使用内容分析法进行了定性研究。搜索方法涉及审查已发布的关于在工作场所预防和应对COVID-19大流行的指南。筛选过程之后,内容分析中包括10条指南.在分析过程中,200个含义代码,49个子类别,并确定了11个类别。利用可信性标准来确保调查结果的准确性和强度。
    结果:COVID-19大流行期间的11类国际内容是法律要求和雇员和雇主的职责,结构和程序的变化,风险评估,风险沟通,信息和培训,内部和外部的协商与合作,提供工作场所卫生设施和工具,特殊条件,特殊群体,关闭和重新打开工作场所,减少接触和接触以及心理健康。
    结论:在大流行期间保护员工需要采取多方面的方法和强有力的倡导。应根据风险水平制定大流行控制业务计划,根据员工的条件和需求提供支持。国际组织之间的合作对于制定标准化计划和发布全面准则,以全球视角和地方执行应对突发卫生事件至关重要,借鉴COVID-19大流行期间的经验教训。
    BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate international measures for pandemic control in the workplace based on guidelines from international organizations to learn from their experiences.
    METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using content analysis. The search method involved reviewing published guidelines on preventing and responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in workplaces. After the screening process, ten guidelines were included in the content analysis. During the analysis, 200 meaning codes, 49 subcategories, and eleven categories were identified. Trustworthiness criteria were utilized to ensure the accuracy and strength of the findings.
    RESULTS: Eleven categories of international content during the COVID-19 pandemic were legal requirements and duties of employees and employers, structural and program changes, risk assessment, risk communication, information and training, internal and external consultation and cooperation, provision of facilities and tools for workplace hygiene, special conditions, special groups, closing and reopening workplaces, reducing contact and exposure and mental health.
    CONCLUSIONS: Protecting employees during a pandemic requires a multifaceted approach and strong advocacy. The operational plan for pandemic control should be developed based on the level of risk, with support tailored to employees\' conditions and needs. Cooperation among international organizations is essential to develop a standardized plan and issue comprehensive guidelines in response to health emergencies with a global perspective and local implementation, drawing from the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:尽管关于如何对结果测量仪器(OMIs)进行系统评价的全面和广泛的指南已经存在,例如,来自COSMIN(基于共识的健康测量指标选择标准)倡议,关键信息通常在已发布的报告中缺失。本文介绍了系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)2020指南的首选报告项目扩展的开发:OMIs2024的PRISMA-COSMIN。
    方法:开发过程遵循增强健康研究的质量和透明度(EQUATOR)指南,并包括文献检索,专家咨询,Delphi的一项研究,混合工作组会议,试点测试,和项目结束会议,患者/公众的综合参与。
    结果:从文献和专家咨询来看,确定了49个潜在相关的报告项目。德尔菲研究的第一轮由103名小组成员完成,而第2轮和第3轮由78名小组成员完成。经过三轮,就44个项目的纳入和措辞达成一致(≥67%)。在24名与会者参加的工作组会议上,讨论了11个未达成共识的项目和/或措辞。就列入和措辞10个项目达成协议,并删除1个项目。对OMI系统评价的65位作者进行的试点测试通过措辞和结构的微小变化进一步改进了指南。在项目结束会议期间完成。便于报告完整的系统审查报告的最终清单包含54个(分)项目,涉及审查的标题,abstract,简单的语言摘要,开放科学,介绍,方法,结果,和讨论。与标题和摘要有关的十三个项目也包括在单独的摘要清单中,指导作者报告例如会议摘要。
    结论:用于2024年OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN包括两个清单(完整报告;摘要),他们相应的解释和阐述文件,详细说明每个项目的理由和例子,和数据流图。2024年OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN可以改善OMIs系统评价的报告,促进其可重复性,并允许最终用户评估OMI的质量,并为特定应用选择最合适的OMI。注意:为了鼓励其广泛传播,本文可在以下期刊的网站上免费访问:健康与生活质量结果;临床流行病学杂志;患者报告结果杂志;生活质量研究。
    OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
    METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
    RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
    CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:尽管关于如何对结果测量仪器(OMIs)进行系统评价的全面和广泛的指南已经存在,例如,来自COSMIN(基于共识的健康测量指标选择标准)倡议,关键信息通常在已发布的报告中缺失。本文介绍了系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)2020指南的首选报告项目扩展的开发:OMIs2024的PRISMA-COSMIN。
    方法:开发过程遵循增强健康研究的质量和透明度(EQUATOR)指南,并包括文献检索,专家咨询,Delphi的一项研究,混合工作组会议,试点测试,和项目结束会议,患者/公众的综合参与。
    结果:从文献和专家咨询来看,确定了49个潜在相关的报告项目。德尔菲研究的第一轮由103名小组成员完成,而第2轮和第3轮由78名小组成员完成。经过三轮,就44个项目的纳入和措辞达成一致(≥67%)。在24名与会者参加的工作组会议上,讨论了11个未达成共识的项目和/或措辞。就列入和措辞10个项目达成协议,并删除1个项目。对OMI系统评价的65位作者进行的试点测试通过措辞和结构的微小变化进一步改进了指南。在项目结束会议期间完成。便于报告完整的系统审查报告的最终清单包含54个(分)项目,涉及审查的标题,abstract,简单的语言摘要,开放科学,介绍,方法,结果,和讨论。与标题和摘要有关的十三个项目也包括在单独的摘要清单中,指导作者报告例如会议摘要。
    结论:用于2024年OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN包括两个清单(完整报告;摘要),他们相应的解释和阐述文件,详细说明每个项目的理由和例子,和数据流图。2024年OMIs的PRISMA-COSMIN可以改善OMIs系统评价的报告,促进其可重复性,并允许最终用户评估OMI的质量,并为特定应用选择最合适的OMI。注意:为了鼓励其广泛传播,本文可在以下期刊的网站上免费访问:健康与生活质量结果;临床流行病学杂志;患者报告结果杂志;生活质量研究。
    OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
    METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
    RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
    CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    基于人类干细胞的建模系统是有价值的工具,可以大大提高基础研究的临床翻译。重要的是,基于人类干细胞的模型在生物医学研究中的成功应用取决于道德原则和实践标准的广泛采用。为了实现这一结果,国际干细胞研究协会(ISSCR)提供了一套全面的建议,旨在促进人类干细胞的伦理使用,并确保该领域的严密性和可重复性。理解和实施这些建议应该是世界各地调查人员的首要任务。
    Human stem cell-based modeling systems are valuable tools that can greatly improve the clinical translation of basic research. Importantly, the successful application of human stem cell-based models to biomedical research depends on the widespread adoption of ethical principles and practical standards. To achieve this outcome, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) provides a comprehensive set of recommendations that aim to promote the ethical usage of human stem cells and to ensure rigor and reproducibility within the field. Understanding and implementing these recommendations should be a top priority for investigators around the world.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:制定公共卫生指南,卫生系统,卫生政策干预需要复杂的系统思维来理解动态系统中干预的直接和间接影响。WHO-INTEGRATE框架,一个根植于世界卫生组织(世卫组织)规范和价值观的决定证据框架,提供了一种结构化的方法来系统地评估指南的复杂性,例如干预措施的健康益处和危害及其人权和社会文化可接受性的平衡。本文提供了一个应用WHO-INTEGRATE框架制定WHO育儿干预措施预防儿童虐待指南的实例,并分享关于附加值的反思见解,遇到的挑战,和吸取的教训。
    方法:方法学方法包括描述WHO-INTEGRATE框架的预期逐步应用,并从指导制定WHO育儿干预指南的核心团队内部内省会议中获得反思性见解和方法研讨会。
    结果:在整个指南制定过程中使用WHO-INTEGRATE框架。它在以下步骤中促进了广泛的决策标准和系统级方面的反思性审议:(1)确定指南范围并定义利益相关者的参与,(2)优先考虑WHO-INTEGRATE子标准和指南结果,(3)使用研究证据来告知WHO-INTEGRATE标准,(4)制定和提出符合WHO-INTEGRATE标准的建议。尽管增值,挑战,例如需要大量的时间投资,优先次级标准的广泛范围,跨不同标准的整合,以及证据来源和将见解翻译成简洁的格式,遇到了。
    结论:应用WHO-INTEGRATE框架对于将有效性证据与对育儿干预措施的实施和更广泛影响的见解相结合至关重要,超越健康益处和危害考虑,培养整个社会的观点。世卫组织-INTEGRATE子标准优先次序的证据审查有助于指导指南制定小组的讨论。告知建议并澄清不确定性。这一经验为未来的指南小组和使用WHO-INTEGRATE框架的指南方法学家提供了重要的经验教训。
    BACKGROUND: Development of guidelines for public health, health system, and health policy interventions demands complex systems thinking to understand direct and indirect effects of interventions within dynamic systems. The WHO-INTEGRATE framework, an evidence-to-decision framework rooted in the norms and values of the World Health Organization (WHO), provides a structured method to assess complexities in guidelines systematically, such as the balance of an intervention\'s health benefits and harms and their human rights and socio-cultural acceptability. This paper provides a worked example of the application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework in developing the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions to prevent child maltreatment, and shares reflective insights regarding the value added, challenges encountered, and lessons learnt.
    METHODS: The methodological approach comprised describing the intended step-by-step application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework and gaining reflective insights from introspective sessions within the core team guiding the development of the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions and a methodological workshop.
    RESULTS: The WHO-INTEGRATE framework was used throughout the guideline development process. It facilitated reflective deliberation across a broad range of decision criteria and system-level aspects in the following steps: (1) scoping the guideline and defining stakeholder engagement, (2) prioritising WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria and guideline outcomes, (3) using research evidence to inform WHO-INTEGRATE criteria, and (4) developing and presenting recommendations informed by WHO-INTEGRATE criteria. Despite the value added, challenges, such as substantial time investment required, broad scope of prioritised sub-criteria, integration across diverse criteria, and sources of evidence and translation of insights into concise formats, were encountered.
    CONCLUSIONS: Application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework was crucial in the integration of effectiveness evidence with insights into implementation and broader implications of parenting interventions, extending beyond health benefits and harms considerations and fostering a whole-of-society-perspective. The evidence reviews for prioritised WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria were instrumental in guiding guideline development group discussions, informing recommendations and clarifying uncertainties. This experience offers important lessons for future guideline panels and guideline methodologists using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    生物医学研究社区通过标准化命名法解决动物研究中的可重复性挑战,改进的实验设计,透明的报告,数据共享,和集中式存储库。ARRIVE指南概述了实验中实验动物的文档标准,但是遗传信息往往是不完整的。为了补救这一点,我们提出了实验动物遗传报告(LAG-R)框架。LAG-R旨在在科学出版物中记录动物的基因构成,为复制和适当的模型使用提供必要的详细信息。虽然验证完整的遗传组成可能不切实际,更好的报告和验证工作提高了研究的可靠性。LAG-R标准化将增强可重复性,同行评审,和全面的科学严谨。
    The biomedical research community addresses reproducibility challenges in animal studies through standardized nomenclature, improved experimental design, transparent reporting, data sharing, and centralized repositories. The ARRIVE guidelines outline documentation standards for laboratory animals in experiments, but genetic information is often incomplete. To remedy this, we propose the Laboratory Animal Genetic Reporting (LAG-R) framework. LAG-R aims to document animals\' genetic makeup in scientific publications, providing essential details for replication and appropriate model use. While verifying complete genetic compositions may be impractical, better reporting and validation efforts enhance reliability of research. LAG-R standardization will bolster reproducibility, peer review, and overall scientific rigor.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:使用新电流源的静电计的新质量保证和控制方法,与静电计指南中公布的方法不同,已被报道。这种电流源使用干电池,在电压方面表现出优异的性能,温度,和时间特征。静电计灵敏度系数可以通过将一个静电计的灵敏度与另一个静电计的灵敏度在两种方法中预先由校准实验室校准的静电计校准系数上进行比较来计算。该指南方法需要在设施中设置两组或更多组电离室和静电计。相比之下,我们的方法不使用电离室;因此,静电计的灵敏度比可以在任何设施中测量。这项研究比较了使用新电流源方法(电流方法)计算的静电计灵敏度因子的不确定性与使用静电计指南中描述的线性加速器(LINAC)和电离室(LINAC方法)计算的不确定度。
    方法:在本研究中,我们使用了日本川口电力公司以前发明的电流源。用三个制造商的静电计测量静电计的灵敏度比。通过乘以静电计校准系数来计算静电计灵敏度因子。电离室为30013(PTW),电流源是在校准条件下从10MVTrueBeamX射线获得的电流。平均值,标准偏差,并计算变异系数。还测量了设置电离室以计算静电计的灵敏度比所需的时间。通过计算静电计灵敏度系数的扩展不确定度来确认准确性。
    结果:LINAC方法的最大变异系数为0.072%。LINAC方法的总时间约为110分钟。当前方法具有0.0055%的最大变异系数,并且所花费的时间小于LINAC方法所花费的时间(35min)的一半,因为在校准条件下没有电离室设置和施加的电压稳定的等待时间。静电计校准系数的扩展不确定度分别为0.36%和0.36%,分别。
    结论:使用电流源的静电计灵敏度因子的新交叉比较方法比指南中描述的线性加速器方法更有效和有用;此外,该方法确保了静电计质量保证和控制的准确性。
    BACKGROUND: A new quality assurance and control method for electrometers using a new current source, different from the method published in the guidelines for electrometers, has been reported. This current source uses dry batteries and exhibits excellent performance in terms of voltage, temperature, and time characteristics. The electrometer sensitivity coefficient can be calculated by comparing the sensitivity of one electrometer with that of another on the electrometer calibration coefficient that has been calibrated by a calibration laboratory in advance in both methods. The guideline method requires two or more sets of ionization chambers and electrometers in the facility. In contrast, our method does not use ionization chambers; therefore, the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer can be measured in any facility. This study compared the uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity factor calculated using the new current source method (current method) with that calculated using a linear accelerator (LINAC) and ionization chambers (LINAC method) described in the electrometer guidelines.
    METHODS: In this study, we used a current source that we invented previously by Kawaguchi Electric Works in Japan. The sensitivity ratios of the electrometers were measured with three manufacture\'s electrometers. The electrometer sensitivity factor was calculated by multiplying the electrometer calibration coefficient. The ionization chamber was 30013 (PTW), and the current source was the current obtained from 10 MV TrueBeam X-rays under calibration conditions. The mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The time required to set up the ionization chamber for calculating the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer was also measured. The accuracy was confirmed by calculating the expanded uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity coefficients.
    RESULTS: The LINAC method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.072%. The gross time of the LINAC method was approximately 110 min. The current method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.0055% and took less than half the time taken by the LINAC method (35 min) because there was no waiting time for the ionization chamber to be set up and the applied voltage to stabilize under calibration conditions. The expanded uncertainties of the electrometer calibration coefficients were 0.36% and 0.36%, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: The new cross-comparison method for electrometer sensitivity factors using a current source is more efficient and useful than the linear accelerator method described in the guidelines; furthermore, this method ensured accuracy for quality assurance and control of electrometers.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本文考察了研究设计的伦理和研究的启动(例如,招募参与者)涉及难民参与者。我们的目标是为研究人员和IRB成员提供一套道德考虑和务实的建议,以解决以难民为中心的研究中的挑战,因为它是为IRB审查而开发和准备的。我们讨论了挑战,包括如何定义和识别难民;他们之前的脆弱性,during,以及影响其研究参与的重新安置;招募;同意做法,包括同意和无人陪伴的未成年人;和利益冲突。国际机构提供的道德指导和监管监督,联邦政府,和IRB对于加强对参与者的保护很重要。我们描述了需要额外的道德指导和意识,如果不是由美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)伦理研究指导原则指导的对难民人口的特殊保护。
    This article examines the ethics of research design and the initiation of a study (e.g., recruitment of participants) involving refugee participants. We aim to equip investigators and members of IRBs with a set of ethical considerations and pragmatic recommendations to address challenges in refugee-focused research as it is developed and prepared for IRB review. We discuss challenges including how refugees are being defined and identified; their vulnerabilities before, during, and following resettlement that impacts their research participation; recruitment; consent practices including assent and unaccompanied minors; and conflicts of interest. Ethical guidance and regulatory oversight provided by international bodies, federal governments, and IRBs are important for enforcing the protection of participants. We describe the need for additional ethical guidance and awareness, if not special protections for refugee populations as guided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guiding Principles for Ethical Research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    鉴于最近使用远程评估收集幼儿数据的情况有所增加,研究人员和从业人员将受益于该领域内最佳实践的指导。根据我们远程评估600多名学龄前儿童的经验,我们的研究团队提供了一套主要原则,以指导专业人员成功创建和实施远程评估系统。指南包括有关如何选择技术平台的详细信息,选择和使用在线评估,以及如何使传统任务适应远程使用。我们还注意到使用某些类型的任务所固有的挑战,提供安排远程会话的提示,并就如何在整个评估过程中促进儿童的参与提供建议。
    Given the recent rise in the use of remote assessments to collect data from young children, researchers and practitioners would benefit from guidance on best practices within the field. Based on our experiences with assessing over 600 preschoolers remotely, our research team provides a set of main principles to guide professionals to successfully create and operationalize systems for remote assessment. Guidelines include detailed information about how to choose a technology platform, select and use online assessments, and how to adapt traditional tasks for remote use. We also note the challenges inherent in using certain types of tasks, provide tips for scheduling remote sessions, and offer advice for how to promote children\'s engagement throughout the assessment process.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号