Suchergebnisse

A recent meta-analysis claimed to provide evidence that academic self-concept and achievement have reciprocal prospective effects on each other (reciprocal effects model). However, prospective effects were estimated while adjusting for a prior measurement of the outcome, and this method is susceptible to spurious findings due to correlations with residuals and regression to the mean. Here we re-analyze the meta-analytic effects and show that different plausible models can support opposing claims: either that self-concept had an increasing or a decreasing effect on achievement, and vice versa. Consequently, claims beyond a positive cross-sectional correlation between academic self-concept and achievement, including the reciprocal effects model, can be questioned. The findings were validated by analyses of simulated data, which indicated that true prospective effects were not necessary for the observed meta-analytic associations. We further propose the extended skill development model (ESDM) as a more parsimonious alternative to the reciprocal effects model.

On July 16th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a landmark decision in the case of Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II) concerning the legality of Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision has potentially significant effects on the ability of researchers to legitimately transfer personal data for health research purposes from countries inside the EU, to third countries outside the EU. This article aims: i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the legitimate sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, in light of this elaboration, ii) to consider the avenues that might be pursued to remedy challenges posed by the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.

On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, (ii) to consider certain options available to address the consequences of the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.

On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, (ii) to consider certain options available to address the consequences of the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.

On July 16th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a landmark decision in the case of Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II) concerning the legality of Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision has potentially significant effects on the ability of researchers to legitimately transfer personal data for health research purposes from countries inside the EU, to third countries outside the EU.[1] This article aims: i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the legitimate sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, in light of this elaboration, ii) to consider the avenues that might be pursued to remedy challenges posed by the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.