Suchergebnisse

International audience ; BACKGROUND: In 2003, the governments of Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland agreed that there was a need in Europe for a treatment programme for adolescents with cannabis use disorders and other behavioural problems. Based on an exhaustive literature review of evidence-based treatments and an international experts meeting, Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) was selected for a pilot study first, which was successful, and then for a joint, transnational randomized controlled trial named INCANT (INternational CAnnabis Need for Treatment). METHODS/DESIGN: INCANT is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an open-label, parallel group design. This study compares MDFT with treatment as usual (TAU) at and across sites in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, The Hague and Geneva. Assessments are at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after randomization. A minimum of 450 cases in total is required; sites will recruit 60 cases each in Belgium and Switzerland, and a maximum of 120 each in France, Germany and the Netherlands.Eligible for INCANT are adolescents from 13 through 18 years of age with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse), with at least one parent willing to take part in the treatment. Randomization is concealed to, and therefore beyond control by, the researcher/site requesting it. Randomization is stratified as to gender, age and level of cannabis consumption.Assessments focus on substance use; mental function; behavioural problems; and functioning regarding family, school, peers and leisure time.For outcome analyses, the study will use state of the art latent growth curve modelling techniques, including all randomized participants according to the intention-to-treat principle.INCANT has been approved by the appropriate ethical boards in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. INCANT is funded by the (federal) Ministries of Health of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and by ...

International audience ; BACKGROUND: In 2003, the governments of Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland agreed that there was a need in Europe for a treatment programme for adolescents with cannabis use disorders and other behavioural problems. Based on an exhaustive literature review of evidence-based treatments and an international experts meeting, Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) was selected for a pilot study first, which was successful, and then for a joint, transnational randomized controlled trial named INCANT (INternational CAnnabis Need for Treatment). METHODS/DESIGN: INCANT is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an open-label, parallel group design. This study compares MDFT with treatment as usual (TAU) at and across sites in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, The Hague and Geneva. Assessments are at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after randomization. A minimum of 450 cases in total is required; sites will recruit 60 cases each in Belgium and Switzerland, and a maximum of 120 each in France, Germany and the Netherlands.Eligible for INCANT are adolescents from 13 through 18 years of age with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse), with at least one parent willing to take part in the treatment. Randomization is concealed to, and therefore beyond control by, the researcher/site requesting it. Randomization is stratified as to gender, age and level of cannabis consumption.Assessments focus on substance use; mental function; behavioural problems; and functioning regarding family, school, peers and leisure time.For outcome analyses, the study will use state of the art latent growth curve modelling techniques, including all randomized participants according to the intention-to-treat principle.INCANT has been approved by the appropriate ethical boards in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. INCANT is funded by the (federal) Ministries of Health of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and by MILDT: the Mission Interministerielle de Lutte Contra la Drogue et de Toximanie, France. DISCUSSION: Until recently, cannabis use disorders in adolescents were not viewed in Europe as requiring treatment, and the co-occurrence of such disorders with other mental and behavioural problems was underestimated. This has changed now.Initially, there was doubt that a RCT would be feasible in treatment sectors and countries with no experience in this type of study. INCANT has proven that such doubts are unjustified. Governments and treatment sites from the five participating countries agreed on a sound study protocol, and the INCANT trial is now underway as planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51014277.

International audience ; BACKGROUND: In 2003, the governments of Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland agreed that there was a need in Europe for a treatment programme for adolescents with cannabis use disorders and other behavioural problems. Based on an exhaustive literature review of evidence-based treatments and an international experts meeting, Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) was selected for a pilot study first, which was successful, and then for a joint, transnational randomized controlled trial named INCANT (INternational CAnnabis Need for Treatment). METHODS/DESIGN: INCANT is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an open-label, parallel group design. This study compares MDFT with treatment as usual (TAU) at and across sites in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, The Hague and Geneva. Assessments are at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after randomization. A minimum of 450 cases in total is required; sites will recruit 60 cases each in Belgium and Switzerland, and a maximum of 120 each in France, Germany and the Netherlands.Eligible for INCANT are adolescents from 13 through 18 years of age with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse), with at least one parent willing to take part in the treatment. Randomization is concealed to, and therefore beyond control by, the researcher/site requesting it. Randomization is stratified as to gender, age and level of cannabis consumption.Assessments focus on substance use; mental function; behavioural problems; and functioning regarding family, school, peers and leisure time.For outcome analyses, the study will use state of the art latent growth curve modelling techniques, including all randomized participants according to the intention-to-treat principle.INCANT has been approved by the appropriate ethical boards in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. INCANT is funded by the (federal) Ministries of Health of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and by ...

International audience ; One of the important research tool is questionnaire. Decision mak ers and researchers across all academic and industry sectors conduct surveys and questionnaires to uncover answers to specific, significant questions. In fact, questionnaires and surveys can be an effective tools for data collection required for research and evaluation. In order to develop a survey/questionnaire, first the researcher should decide how to collect the required data. In this regard, scaling is the branch of measurement that involves the construction of an instrument. One of the most widely used scaling method is attitude scales to measure instruments and Lik ert scale is applied as one of the most fundamental and frequently used psychometric tools in sociology, psychology, information system, politics, economy and many more research. However, research methodology research have not particularly suggested the best rating scale to be chosen for a research. This study is going to provide an overview of the Lik ert scale and comparing rating scales of different lengths. Results will mak e researchers able to mak e decision on what number of Lik ert scale points use for their survey and questionnaire. Tak en as a whole this study suggests using of seven-point rating scale and if there is a need to have respondent to be directed on one side, then six-point scale might be the most suitable.

ABSTRACTThis article investigates how different decisions can be reached when decision makers consult a binary rating system and a scale rating system. Since typically decision makers use rating information to make binary decisions, it is particularly important to compare the scale system to the binary system. We show that the only N‐point scale system that reports a rater's opinion consistently with the binary system is one where N is odd and is not divisible by 4. At the aggregate level, however, we illustrate that inconsistencies persist regardless of the choice of N. In addition, we provide simple tools that can determine whether the systems lead decision makers to the same decision outcomes.

Unlike other data collection modes, the effect of labeling rating scales on reliability and validity, as relevant aspects of measurement quality, has seldom been addressed in online surveys. In this study, verbal and numeric rating scales were compared in split-ballot online survey experiments. In the first experiment, respondents' cognitive processes were observed by means of eye tracking, that is, determining the respondent's fixations in different areas of the screen. In the remaining experiments, data for reliability and validity analysis were collected from a German adult sample. The results show that respondents needed more fixations and more time to endorse a category when a rating scale had numeric labels. Cross-sectional reliability was lower and some hypotheses with respect to the criterion validity could not be supported when numeric rating scales were used. In conclusion, theoretical considerations and the empirical results contradict the current broad usage of numeric scales in online surveys.

Rating scales are used extensively in surveys. A rating scale can descend from the highest to the lowest point or from the positive to the negative pole. A rating scale can also start with the lowest point (or the negative pole) and ascend to the highest point (or the positive pole). Previous research has shown that the direction of the scale, i.e., the order of the response options, has an impact on responses, and that respondents are more likely to select response options close to the starting point of the scale, regardless of whether the scale ascends or descends. This paper advances the literature by examining empirically whether or not the response order effect in rating scale questions is driven by satisficing. Drawing on data from five experiments, we found that scale direction had a significant and extreme impact on response distributions. Although the effect of scale direction was stronger among speeders than non-speeders, the effect was observed across the board among those who were at a high risk of satisficing and those who were not.

Australian researchers have used ANU status scales for over two decades to assign socioeconomic status scores to occupations coded into the occupational classifications produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). When the ABS has released new occupational classifications in the past, the ANU scale has been updated accordingly. The most recent status scale, the ANU3 scale, was developed in 1989 for use with the First Edition of the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO). In 1996, however, the ABS released the Second Edition of ASCO. In this paper, we report an adaptation of the ANU3 scale for use with this modified classification.