China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
What Does Online Talk Represent?
Published in Trena M. Paulus, Alyssa Friend Wise, Looking for Insight, Transformation, and Learning in Online Talk, 2019
Trena M. Paulus, Alyssa Friend Wise
However, there are also ways of describing and interpreting what groups and organizations are able to achieve that individuals can’t.1 For example, in the organizational literature, Hutchins (1995) uses the notion of distributed cognition to explain how multiple crew members collectively know how to navigate a ship into harbor, even though none of them has the knowledge to do so individually. Similarly, Stahl’s work on group cognition (2006) and Akgün, Lynn, and Byrne’s (2003) theory of organizational learning from a social cognition perspective both present accounts of shared understandings that are constructed through “reciprocal interactions” (p. 839) and belong to a group collectively, rather than to any particular individual. These are natively group constructs that can be validly used to study and make claims about a group, but do not make sense to use for analysis at the individual level.
Between-Person Analysis and Interpretation of Interactions
Published in Lesa Hoffman, Longitudinal Analysis, 2015
The main and interactive effects of sex by dementia diagnosis group are presented next, as illustrated in Figure 2.2, in which the sex differences are shown by the vertical distances between the lines, and the diagnosis group differences are shown by the differences within the lines. First, with respect to sex differences, there was a significant main effect of sex β3 = −2.88 such that in the no dementia group, cognition was significantly lower by 2.88 in women than in men. The sex difference in cognition was equivalent in no dementia and future dementia groups, as shown by the nonsignificant sex by no dementia versus future dementia interaction β7 = 0.16. However, the resulting sex difference in cognition favoring men in the future dementia group of β3 + β7 = −2.88 + 0.16 = −2.71 was not significant, likely a result of the small number of persons with future dementia (only 20% of the sample). In addition, the sex difference in cognition was significantly larger in the current dementia group than in the no dementia group, as shown by the significant sex by no dementia versus current dementia interaction β8 = −7.88, and the resulting sex difference in the current dementia group of β3 + β8 = 2.88 − 7.88 = −10.75 was also significant. The sex difference in cognition was also significantly larger in the current dementia group than in the future dementia group, as found by β8 − β7 = −7.88 − 0.16 = −8.04.
The utility of the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination in inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: preliminary findings
Published in Brain Injury, 2020
Douglas L. Weeks, Sara B. Ambrose, Angelique G. Tindall
Clinicians from the TBI unit trained to administer the 3MS/MMSE approached potential participants to determine eligibility for enrollment. Eligible patients received a verbal and written description of the study, and were invited to participate. Because the 3MS is routinely administered at admission, prior to consent the investigator determined the presence of a positive screen for cognitive impairment. For patients who enrolled in the study, and who had an admission score ≤89 on the admission 3MS, secondary consent was obtained from a family member. Written consent was obtained from the patient only if the admission 3MS score was 90 or greater. The 3MS (and from which the MMSE score was derived) was administered to participants as part of the clinical evaluation during the same 72-hour admission and pre-discharge time frame as required by the FIM. Age, sex, years of school completed, acute hospital LOS, acute hospital Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, location of lesion, inpatient rehabilitation impairment group, cognition-altering medications prescribed (anti-seizure, anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, psycho-stimulant), and history of substance abuse were obtained from the participant’s medical record.
Does restless legs syndrome impact cognitive function via sleep quality in adults with Parkinson’s disease?
Published in International Journal of Neuroscience, 2020
Katie L. Cederberg, Elizabeth B. Brinkley, Natalya Belotserkovkaya, Raima A. Memon, Robert W. Motl, Amy W. Amara
The correlations among RLS group, cognition, sleep, and possible confounding variables are presented in Table 3. Presence of RLS was significantly correlated with worse sleep quality as measured by PDSS (rs = −0.501), more daytime sleepiness, as measured by ESS (rs = 0.298), worse cognitive impairment, as measured by MoCA (rs = −0.296), and higher risk for OSA, as measured by the Berlin Questionnaire (rs = 0.236). However, there were no significant correlations between the presence of RLS and PD motor symptom severity, depression, or dopaminergic medications (LED). Cognitive impairment was significantly correlated with PD motor severity (MDS-UPDRS III; rs = −0.317), but not with sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, depression, dopaminergic medications, or OSA risk. Worse sleep quality, based on PDSS, was significantly correlated with more excessive daytime sleepiness (ESS; rs = −0.330), more depression (HAMD-17; rs = −0.549), higher LED (rs = −0.307), and higher risk of OSA (rs = −0.426).