Dataset Information

Onwards and upwards: The development, piloting and validation of a new measure of academic tenacity- The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS).

ABSTRACT: What factors determine success at University? For many years the construct of intelligence was felt to be critical. More recently, the construct of grit, has attracted the attention of many researchers, along with related concepts such as self-control, growth mind-sets and resilience. The authors of this paper have developed a specific measure of tenacity and self-composure, two constructs crucial to academic achievement. This measure comprises of 12 items drawn from the above constructs, but also including mental well-being and strengths use. In the first study, the authors report on the psychometric properties of the Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS). The new scale was administered to 1117 university students. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed two underlying factors, one labelled "tenacity" had seven items and accounted for 30% of the variance. The second was labelled "self-composure," and accounted for 14% of the variance. In the second study the BUSS was given to 340 undergraduate students along with the Grit Scale, the Self-Control Scale, the Mind-sets Quiz, the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) and the short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). This study presented evidence for good internal consistency reliability (.74) and test-retest reliability over three weeks was .70 for Tenacity and .77 for Self-composure. BUSS Academic Tenacity correlated highly with grit (.63), self-control (.59), resilience (.52), mind-sets (.35) and mental well-being (.54). The study also evidences good discriminative validity of the BUSS. A second study conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explaining a total of 44% of the variance. The authors have shown good support for the reliability and validity of the BUSS scale. It now needs to be tested in other universities and in different countries. It is the contention of the authors that academic tenacity will be a better measure of academic success than other competing measures, such as grit, on their own. Further research is needed to test this assertion.

SUBMITTER: Kannangara CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377486 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Onwards and upwards: The development, piloting and validation of a new measure of academic tenacity- The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS).

Kannangara Chathurika Sewwandi CS Allen Rosie Elizabeth RE Carson Jerome Francis JF Khan Samia Zahraa Noor SZN Waugh Gill G Kandadi Kondal Reddy KR

PloS one 20200723 7

What factors determine success at University? For many years the construct of intelligence was felt to be critical. More recently, the construct of grit, has attracted the attention of many researchers, along with related concepts such as self-control, growth mind-sets and resilience. The authors of this paper have developed a specific measure of tenacity and self-composure, two constructs crucial to academic achievement. This measure comprises of 12 items drawn from the above constructs, but al ...[more]

PMID: 32701983

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe type of methods used in economic evaluations of health technology can lead to results that may influence decisions. Despite the potential impact on decision making, there is very little documentation of methods used in economic evaluation in oncology pertaining to key assumptions and extrapolation methods of survival benefits, especially in terms of survival analysis techniques and methods for extrapolation.ObjectivesThe primary objectives of this study were to identify, examine, and describe the methods used in economic evaluations in oncology over a 10-year period, while secondary objectives included examining the use of identified methods across different geographic regions.MethodsA systematic search of the published oncology literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations of advanced or metastatic cancers published between 2010 and 2019 using the PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. A random sample was taken, and information on type of study, data source, modeling techniques, and survival analysis methods were abstracted and descriptively summarized.ResultsA total of 8481 abstracts were identified and 76 economic evaluations were abstracted and assessed. Most identified studies were from North America (38%), East Asia (21%), continental Europe (18%), or the UK (16%), and most commonly focused on lung cancer (18%), colorectal cancer (16%), or breast cancer (13%). A large majority of studies were based on data from randomized controlled trials (82%), utilized a cost-utility approach (82%), and took a public healthcare system perspective (83%). Common model structures included Markov (49%) and partitioned survival (17%). Fitted parametric curves were the most commonly used extrapolation method (89%) for overall survival and most often utilized the Weibull distribution (64%). Secondary assessments showed modest regional variation in the use of identified methods, including the use of fitted parametric curves, testing of the proportional hazards assumption, and validation of results.ConclusionA majority of papers in the study sample reported basic characteristics of study type, data source used, modeling techniques, and utilization of survival analysis methods. However, greater detail in reporting extrapolation methods, statistical analyses, and validation of results could be potential improvements, especially across regions, in order to support greater consistency in decision making. Future research could document the diffusion of novel modeling techniques into economic evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundBespoke self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are commonly developed or adapted for each new randomised controlled trial. Consequently, RUMs lack standardisation and validation is rarely conducted. A new generic RUM, ModRUM, has been developed using a rigorous process, including consultation with health economists and patients. ModRUM includes a concise core healthcare module, designed to be included in all trials, and depth-adding questions, which can replace or be added to core questions as needed. Modules covering other sectors are under development. The aim of this study was to test the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of the healthcare module of ModRUM.MethodsPatients who had a recent appointment at their GP practice were invited to complete ModRUM (core module or core module with depth questions), a characteristics form and the EQ-5D-5L. Acceptability was assessed via response rates and questionnaire completion time. Feasibility was assessed by reviewing issues observed in participants' responses and question completion rates. Construct validity was tested via hypothesis testing and known-group analyses, using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a generalised linear model. Criterion validity was tested by comparing ModRUM results with primary care medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (pc) were estimated.ResultsOne hundred patients participated from five GP practices in the South-West of England. Acceptability was higher for the core module (20% versus 10% response rate). Question completion rates were high across both versions (> 90%). Some support was observed for construct validity, with results suggesting that healthcare costs differ dependent on the number of long-term conditions (p < 0.05) and are negatively associated with health-related quality of life (p < 0.01). Sensitivity was high for all questions (> 0.83), while specificity varied (0.33-0.88). There was a good level of agreement for GP contacts and costs, and prescribed medication costs (pc > 0.6).ConclusionThis study provided preliminary evidence of the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of ModRUM. Further testing is required within trials and with groups that were less well represented in this study.

Project description:Variability is ubiquitous in human movement, arising from internal and external noise, inherent biological redundancy, and from the neurophysiological control actions that help regulate movement fluctuations. Increased walking variability can lead to increased energetic cost and/or increased fall risk. Conversely, biological noise may be beneficial, even necessary, to enhance motor performance. Indeed, encouraging more variability actually facilitates greater improvements in some forms of locomotor rehabilitation. Thus, it is critical to identify the fundamental principles humans use to regulate stride-to-stride fluctuations in walking. This study sought to determine how humans regulate stride-to-stride fluctuations in stepping movements during treadmill walking. We developed computational models based on pre-defined goal functions to compare if subjects, from each stride to the next, tried to maintain the same speed as the treadmill, or instead stay in the same position on the treadmill. Both strategies predicted average behaviors empirically indistinguishable from each other and from that of humans. These strategies, however, predicted very different stride-to-stride fluctuation dynamics. Comparisons to experimental data showed that human stepping movements were generally well-predicted by the speed-control model, but not by the position-control model. Human subjects also exhibited no indications they corrected deviations in absolute position only intermittently: i.e., closer to the boundaries of the treadmill. Thus, humans clearly do not adopt a control strategy whose primary goal is to maintain some constant absolute position on the treadmill. Instead, humans appear to regulate their stepping movements in a way most consistent with a strategy whose primary goal is to try to maintain the same speed as the treadmill at each consecutive stride. These findings have important implications both for understanding how biological systems regulate walking in general and for being able to harness these mechanisms to develop more effective rehabilitation interventions to improve locomotor performance.

Dataset Information

Onwards and upwards: The development, piloting and validation of a new measure of academic tenacity- The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS).

Publications

Onwards and upwards: The development, piloting and validation of a new measure of academic tenacity- The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets