Search results

Worldwide efforts to identify individuals infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) focus almost exclusively on community healthcare systems, thereby failing to reach high-risk populations and those with poor access to primary care. In the USA, community-based HCV testing policies and guidelines overlook correctional facilities, where HCV rates are believed to be as high as 40 percent. This is a missed opportunity: more than ten million Americans move through correctional facilities each year. Herein, the purpose of this paper is to examine HCV testing practices in the US correctional system, California and describe how universal opt-out HCV testing could expand early HCV detection, improve public health in correctional facilities and communities, and prove cost-effective over time.

A commentary on the value of standardizing screening programs across facilities by mandating all facilities (universal) to implement opt-out testing policies for all prisoners upon entry to the correctional facilities.

Current variability in facility-level testing programs results in inconsistent testing levels across correctional facilities, and therefore makes estimating the actual number of HCV-infected adults in the USA difficult. The authors argue that universal opt-out testing policies ensure earlier diagnosis of HCV among a population most affected by the disease and is more cost-effective than selective testing policies.

The commentary explores the current limitations of selective testing policies in correctional systems and provides recommendations and implications for public health and correctional organizations.

Describes Myriad Genetics and its struggle to develop a genetic testing service while facing challenges from competitors and activist organizations. After Myriad's discovery of the BRCA gene, capable of genetic testing for breast cancer in women, Myriad needed to choose a strategy to provide this service to the public. With several major competitors offering similar services, intense media scrutiny, and a charged activist and political climate, a poor Myriad decision could have major repercussions.

Discusses US use of drug testing in the workplace, screening employees for smoking, AIDS, genetic traits and reproductive hazards. Attributes this to the costs employers face in insurance, litigation and compensation. Points out that the purpose of drug testing is to circumvent management responsibility for: accidents in the workplace, stress, bad management practices, and disregarding health and safety initiatives. Acknowledges that the tests are harmful and indefensible. Reports that 81 per cent of members of the American Management Association in 1996 conducted drug testing. Claims that screening is the alternative to monitoring – that is screening out individuals who are seen as high risk in some way – yet that misses the point – the focus should be on making hazardous working conditions safe. Indicates that companies may use drug testing as a means of deterring drug users from gravitating towards their organization. Mentions that workplace‐induced stress can lead to substance abuse and that, therefore it is management driven, rather than being a problem the worker brings to the workplace. Quotes a number of company physicians who object to policing drug use. Indicates that drug testing has diverted attention away from health and safety issues and hazardous working conditions.

Examines the impact of genetic testing and therapy on health care in light of the development of the system in the USA since the turn of the twentieth century. Genetic testing and therapy have the potential to create a great advance in health care but also to become a business of multi‐billion dollar proportions. If present trends of investment and long‐range plans mature, health care will be adversely affected in terms of its distribution, access and economy. Developed and sold as commodities in a free‐market economy, genetic advances will economically stress health care and fail to meet the ethical and legal standards demanded by voluntary informed consent and counseling. Without abandonment of the marketplace approach to health care and thorough reform, many will find themselves excluded from the benefits and vulnerable to discrimination.

This policy brief discusses validity and fairness issues that could arise when test-based information is used for making “high stakes” decisions at an individual level, such as, for the certification of teachers or other professionals, or when admitting students into higher education programs and colleges, or for making immigration-related decisions for prospective immigrants. To assist test developers, affiliated researchers and test users enhance levels of validity and fairness with these particular types of test score interpretations and uses, this policy brief summarizes an “argument-based approach” to validation given by Kane.

This policy brief is based on a synthesis of conference proceedings and review of selected pieces of extant literature. To that synthesis, the authors add practitioner-friendly examples with their own analysis of key issues. They conclude by offering recommendations for test developers and test users.

The authors conclude that validity is a complex and evolving construct, especially when considering issues of fairness in individual testing contexts. Kane's argument-based approach offers an accessible framework through which test makers can accumulate evidence to evaluate inferences and arguments related to decisions to be made with test scores. Perspectives of test makers, researchers, test takers and decision-makers must all be incorporated into constructing coherent “validity arguments” to guide the test development and validation processes.

Standardized test use for individual-level decisions is gradually spreading to various regions of the world, but understandings of validity are still uneven among key stakeholders of such testing programs. By translating complex information on test validation, validity and fairness issues with all concerned stakeholders in mind, this policy brief attempts to address the communication gaps noted to exist among these groups by Kane.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how and why personality tests are used in workplace training. This research paper is guided by three research questions that inquire about the role of external and internal stakeholders, the value of psychometric and practical considerations in test selection, and the purpose of personality test use in workplace training.

This research paper uses multiple-case study analysis. Interviews, test reports, product flyers and email correspondence were collected and analyzed from publishers, associations, psychologists and human resource development (HRD) practitioners in Germany, the UK and The Netherlands between 2012 and 2016.

Themes emerge around industry tensions among practitioners and professional associations, psychologists and non-psychologists. Ease of use is a more important factor than psychometrics in the decision-making process. Also, practitioners welcome publishers that offer free coaching support. In the process of using tests for development rather than assessment, re-labeling takes place when practitioners and publishers use positive terms for personality tests as tools for personal stocktaking and development.

Despite extensive data collection and analysis efforts, this study is limited by its focus on a relatively small number of country cases and stakeholders per case.

By combining scientific evidence with practical application, stakeholders can take first steps toward more evidence-based HRD practice around personality testing in workplace training.

Little academic literature exists on the use of personality testing in workplace training. Without a clear understanding of the use of personality testing outside personnel selection, the current practice of personality tests for developmental purposes could raise ethical concerns about the rights and responsibilities of test takers.

This paper aims to analyze the convergence of the testing and positivity rates for the COVID-19 pandemic focusing on Germany and Italy.

The authors employ the two-regime threshold autoregressive (TAR) panel unit root test by using the weekly data in the period of 2020:03-2021:04.

Following finding out that the testing and positivity rates are nonlinear, the authors determine that the transition country between the two regimes is Italy for the testing rates and Germany for the positivity rates. Their findings support the partial convergence for the testing rates for Germany and Italy. On the other hand, the authors could not find any convergence for the positivity rates of these two countries.

This paper contributes to academic literature in several ways. Firstly, to the best of their knowledge, this paper is the first study that analyzes the convergence of testing and positivity data. This paper further focuses on two Euro-Area countries which have suffered significantly from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the authors employ the two-regime threshold autoregressive (TAR) panel unit root proposed by Beyaert and Camacho (2008) in their empirical analysis. This recent panel data methodology aims to test real convergence in a nonlinear framework by incorporating the threshold model, panel data unit root test and the calculation of critical values by bootstrap simulation.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the concepts of individual and complete statistical power used for multiple testing and shows their relevance for determining the number of statistical tests to perform when assessing non-response bias.

A statistical power analysis of 55 survey-based research papers published in three prestigious logistics journals (International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Transportation Journal) over the last decade was conducted.

Results show that some of the low complete power levels encountered could have been avoided if fewer tests had been used in the assessment of non-response bias.

The research offers important recommendations to scholars engaged in survey research as they assess the effects of non-respondents on research findings. By following the recommended strategies for testing non-response bias, researchers can improve the statistical power of their findings.