Development and Validity Testing of the School Health Score Card

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (8) ◽  
pp. 569-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Ho Yun ◽  
Yaeji Kim ◽  
Jin A. Sim ◽  
Soo Hyuk Choi ◽  
Cheolil Lim ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e1919108329
Author(s):  
Raquel de Lima Brida ◽  
Daniel Vicentini de Oliveira ◽  
Ely Mitie Massuda

O objetivo do estudo foi de avaliar a abrangência das intervenções de promoção de saúde adotadas em instituição hospitalar. Trata-se de uma pesquisa transversal realizada com 13 gestores de um ambiente hospitalar. Foi utilizado o questionário CDC - Worksite Health Score Card (HSC). Os dados foram analisados por meio da estatística descritiva. Comparando as pontuações das 12 seções do HSC de forma individual, observou-se que oito apresentaram pontuações e quatro não pontuaram. Partindo para verificação das questões que obtiveram a resposta “sim” e sua pontuação, onde 1 é bom, 2 é muito bom e 3 é ótimo, percebe-se que a instituição estudada possui atividades de promoção da saúde voltadas ao trabalhador. Das 26 questões que possuem um nível de impacto 1, a instituição respondeu sim em oito, o equivalente a 31% de estratégias com impacto bom na saúde. Das 30 questões com o valor de impacto 2 a instituição respondeu sim em quatro, o equivalente a 13% de ações com impacto muito bom na saúde. Por fim, das 43 questões de nível de impacto 3 a instituição respondeu sim em oito, o equivalente a 19% de atividades com nível de impacto ótimo. A instituição estudada, embora de forma não organizada em programas, desenvolve práticas em promoção da saúde no ambiente de trabalho hospitalar com níveis de impacto bom, muito bom e ótimo.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Lee H. Ensalada

Abstract Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.


1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-4

Abstract Symptom validity testing, also known as forced-choice testing, is a way to assess the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness—the common feature of which is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. Symptom validity testing comprises two elements: A specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared with the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. Scoring below a norm can be explained in many different ways (eg, fatigue, evaluation anxiety, limited intelligence, and so on), but scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deception. The positive predictive value of the symptom validity technique likely is quite high because there is no alternative explanation to deliberate distortion when performance is below the probability of chance. The sensitivity of this technique is not likely to be good because, as with a thermometer, positive findings indicate that a problem is present, but negative results do not rule out a problem. Although a compelling conclusion is that the examinee who scores below probabilities is deliberately motivated to perform poorly, malingering must be concluded from the total clinical context.


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Lee Ensalada

Abstract Illness behavior refers to the ways in which symptoms are perceived, understood, acted upon, and communicated and include facial grimacing, holding or supporting the affected body part, limping, using a cane, and stooping while walking. Illness behavior can be unconscious or conscious: In the former, the person is unaware of the mental processes and content that are significant in determining behavior; conscious illness behavior may be voluntary and conscious (the two are not necessarily associated). The first broad category of inappropriate illness behavior is defensiveness, which is characterized by denial or minimization of symptoms. The second category includes somatoform disorders, factitious disorders, and malingering and is characterized by exaggerating, fabricating, or denying symptoms; minimizing capabilities or positive traits; or misattributing actual deficits to a false cause. Evaluators can detect the presence of inappropriate illness behaviors based on evidence of consistency in the history or examination; the likelihood that the reported symptoms make medical sense and fit a reasonable disease pattern; understanding of the patient's current situation, personal and social history, and emotional predispositions; emotional reactions to symptoms; evaluation of nonphysiological findings; results obtained using standardized test instruments; and tests of dissimulation, such as symptom validity testing. Unsupported and insupportable conclusions regarding inappropriate illness behavior represent substandard practice in view of the importance of these conclusions for the assessment of impairment or disability.


Pflege ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schmitt ◽  
Görres

Seit vielen Jahrzehnten sind vor allem in angloamerikanischen und skandinavischen Ländern spezialisierte Pflegekräfte in Schulen tätig, die als sogenannte «School (Health) Nurses» die Kinder und Jugendlichen in allen gesundheitlichen Angelegenheiten betreuen. Diese Übersichtsarbeit widmet sich der Frage, welche konkreten Aufgaben und Rollen School Nurses im internationalen Kontext übernehmen und welche davon auch in Deutschland von entsprechend qualifizierten Pflegefachkräften ausgeführt werden könnten. Mithilfe einer systematischen Literaturrecherche wurden 34 Publikationen gefunden, die allgemeine Rollen- und Aufgabenbeschreibungen von School Nurses fokussieren. Insgesamt ließen sich elf zentrale Aufgabenbereiche identifizieren. Diese umfassen unter anderem die direkte pflegerische Versorgung bei Verletzungen, Notfällen, akuten oder chronischen Erkrankungen, präventive und gesundheitsförderliche Tätigkeiten, Information, Schulung und Beratung, die Erhebung gesundheitsbezogener Probleme und Bedarfe sowie die Entwicklung und Durchführung entsprechender Angebote und die Bereiche Kommunikation, Kooperation und Vermittlung. Mit Blick auf die positiven internationalen Erfahrungen erscheint die Einführung von School Nurses in Deutschland als vielversprechender Ansatz zur Förderung von Gesundheits- und Unterstützung von Bildungszielen. Das dazu benötigte Kompetenzprofil erfordert eine Zusatzqualifikation «Schulgesundheitspflege», die - basierend auf vorhandenen internationalen Curricula - auf Hochschulniveau angesiedelt sein sollte.


Author(s):  
Ronda C. Talley ◽  
Rick Jay Short ◽  
Lloyd J. Kolbe
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document