China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Looking beyond the impairment
Published in Margaret Walshe, Nick Miller, Clinical Cases in Dysarthria, 2021
TS was reviewed again six months after the last therapy session (Figure 7.1: Timeline). This time he was seen in the clinic setting. He had not completed the computer training due to problems with double vision but was enjoying his role as ‘house husband’. The CES was re-administered with an improved in scores to 19/32. This improvement was mainly due to change in speaking to strangers on the phone (Supplementary Material 7.4). The semantic differential scale was re-administered (Supplementary Material 7.5). TS could see his scores from the previous session while completing this and was able to comment more reliably on what had changed. There was a slight increase in scores overall. Present Self was re-scored. TS continued to see himself as caring, friendly and intelligent and scored 77 (an increase in six points from the first assessment) with only minor changes across constructs. Future Self was not re-scored as TS was upset that his mobility and vision were changing, and he had new fears about the future. These changes may also have been reflected in the scores of Present Self.
Language development in blind children (1)
Published in Miguel Pérez-Pereira, Gina Conti-Ramsden, Language Development and Social Interaction in Blind Children, 2019
Miguel Pérez-Pereira, Gina Conti-Ramsden
In another study, Demott (1972) tested three different groups of subjects, 41 blind subjects, 41 visually impaired subjects, and 61 normally sighted subjects. Normally sighted individuals were matched on age, grade, sex, and IQ, with blind or severely visually impaired subjects. The subjects ranged in age from 6 to 19 years. An advantage of Demott’s study over other studies on verbalism in blind children is that he also used a group of sighted children to make comparisons. He obtained two measures: a verbalism score and a measure of meaning. In order to obtain the verbalism score, Demott used a collection of 39 objects and a vocabulary list with the names of those objects. A verbalism measure was obtained by subtracting the number of objects correctly identified from the number of words correctly defined. To measure meaning, Demott used a five-point semantic differential scale and 15 pairs of adjectives (such as slow-fast; happy-sad; heavy-light; pretty-ugly, etc.). Fifteen words representing concepts were judged for each pair of polar adjectives.
Evaluation
Published in Jane Doe, Teaching Made Easy, 2017
The semantic differential scale is somewhat different. A statement is given and the respondent is asked to rate it, usually on a seven-point scale, with adjectives such as good-bad at either end of the scale. For example:
Inoculating Against Disillusionment: Protecting Student Confidence in Universities Before a Campus Shooting Crisis
Published in Journal of School Violence, 2022
Erin B. Hester, Sarah Geegan, Bobi Ivanov
Certainty was assessed using a single item (see, Pfau et al., 2005). Respondents used a continuum ranging from 0 (no certainty) to 100 (absolute certainty), respondents to estimate how certain they were about their beliefs toward the statement. Following prior inoculation research (e.g., Ivanov, Sellnow et al., 2017), certainty was included as a measure of strength because it has consistently predicted attitude or belief stability (e.g., Bassili, 1996). Beliefs toward the statement were indexed using a composite measure of four bipolar adjective items used in recent inoculation studies (e.g., Ivanov et al., 2016). The 7-point semantic differential scale included the following adjective pairs: bad/good, dislike/like, wrong/right, and strongly disagree/strongly agree. The scale demonstrated high reliability for initial beliefs (α = .96) and final beliefs (α = .98).
Mapping factors facilitating resilience in mothers – potential clinical relevance for children with ADHD
Published in Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 2020
Pernille Darling Rasmussen, Niels Bilenberg, Richard Kirubakaran, Ole Jakob Storebø
Maternal self-reported resilience was assessed by the Resilience in Adults Scale (RSA); a 33-item self-report scale for measuring adult resilience. The scale is covering six dimensions assessing protective factors on the personal level as well as at a family and a social level. Each item is based on a seven-point semantic differential scale. An example of a positive attribute in Personal Competence is ‘I know if I continue, I will succeed’. Importantly, to reduce risk of acquiescence biases, half of the items have been reversed. The scale has been found reliable for distinguishing clinical samples from non-clinical populations. The internal consistency of the subscales of the RSA ranged from 0.67 to 0.90 and 0.69 to 0.84 (p < 0.01) in the test-retest correlations [16].
Improving student knowledge and perceptions of primary care providers at campus health centers
Published in Journal of American College Health, 2018
To assess knowledge and perceptions of common care providers staffed at student health centers, students were asked to indicate for each kind of provider (ie, doctor [MD, DO], nurse practitioner, physician assistant, registered nurse) whether they knew (true, false, unsure) if they could 1) write prescriptions for medications 2) diagnose illnesses, and 3) order laboratory tests. For each of the 3 primary care providers (ie, doctor, NP, PA) they were also asked to assess their perception of the providers' expertise using a five-item, seven-point semantic differential scale adapted from previous research.11,12 This scale asked students to assess each provider along the bi-polar adjectives of: expert/not an expert, experienced/inexperienced, competent/incompetent, qualified/unqualified, skilled/unskilled (α = .949–.962 for the 3 providers).