The Most Common Error in Valuations using WACC

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.


Author(s):  
Beatrice A. Wright ◽  
Shane J. Lopez

In positive psychology, we must challenge a common error of professional psychology, today: making diagnostic, treatment, and policy decisions primarily on deficiencies of the person instead of giving serious consideration to “deficits” and “strengths” of both person and environment. This mission may seem disheartening in that it requires greater rather than less cognitive complexity. Yet this multifaceted focus is crucial if two system concepts—whole person and behavior as a function of person in interaction with environment—are to betaken seriously (Lewin, 1935 ). Practice and research that fall short of attending to this person-environment interaction does a disservice to remedial possibilities and personal integrity. We have divided this chapter into two parts. In the first part, we present enlightening concepts together with supporting research. In the second part, we apply the insights gained to professional practice and research and make specific recommendations regarding each of the issues raised.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692199681
Author(s):  
Teresa Kieseier

Aims and Objectives: We compared speech accuracy and pronunciation patterns between early learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) with different language backgrounds. We asked (1) whether linguistic background predicts pronunciation outcomes, and (2) if error sources and substitution patterns differ between monolinguals and heterogeneous bilinguals. Methodology: Monolingual and bilingual 4th-graders ( N = 183) at German public primary schools participated in an English picture-naming task. We further collected linguistic, cognitive and social background measures to control for individual differences. Data and Analysis: Productions were transcribed and rated for accuracy and error types by three independent raters. We compared monolingual and bilingual pronunciation accuracy in a linear mixed-effects regression analysis controlling for background factors at the individual and institutional level. We further categorized all error types and compared their relative frequency as well as substitution patterns between different language groups. Findings: After background factors were controlled for, bilinguals (irrespective of specific L1) significantly outperformed their monolingual peers on overall pronunciation accuracy. Irrespective of language background, the most frequent error sources overlapped, affecting English sounds which are considered marked, are absent from the German phoneme inventory, or differ phonetically from a German equivalent. Originality: This study extends previous work on bilingual advantages in other domains of EFL to less researched phonological skills. It focuses on overall productive skills in young FL learners with limited proficiency and provides an overview over the most common error sources and substitution patterns in connection to language background. Significance/Implications: The study highlights that bilingual learners may deploy additional resources in the acquisition of target language phonology that should be addressed in the foreign language classroom.


2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. E610-E611
Author(s):  
B. Mullins ◽  
L. Mazur ◽  
A. Amos ◽  
E.C. Schreiber ◽  
L.B. Marks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

1931 ◽  
Vol 15 (215) ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
H. G. Forder
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 405-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Manríquez ◽  
Ana María Acuña ◽  
Luis Muñoz ◽  
Alvaro Reyes

Objective: Inhaler technique comprises a set of procedures for drug delivery to the respiratory system. The oral inhalation of medications is the first-line treatment for lung diseases. Using the proper inhaler technique ensures sufficient drug deposition in the distal airways, optimizing therapeutic effects and reducing side effects. The purposes of this study were to assess inhaler technique in pediatric and adult patients with asthma; to determine the most common errors in each group of patients; and to compare the results between the two groups. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. Using a ten-step protocol, we assessed inhaler technique in 135 pediatric asthma patients and 128 adult asthma patients. Results: The most common error among the pediatric patients was failing to execute a 10-s breath-hold after inhalation, whereas the most common error among the adult patients was failing to exhale fully before using the inhaler. Conclusions: Pediatric asthma patients appear to perform most of the inhaler technique steps correctly. However, the same does not seem to be true for adult patients.


1976 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Townsend

ABSTRACTChildren aged 2;6–4;0 were asked questions containing comparative and superlative forms of adjectives from pairs designated as unmarked/marked or simply positive/negative. Children's answers required a choice of one out of five objects. Differences in frequency of correct responses were generally greater between unmarked/marked pairs than between simple positive/negative pairs, but the response of ‘greatest extent’ to marked adjective questions was seldom a significantly common error. Linguistic arguments for the unmarked/marked distinction in comparative adjectives are reviewed, and it is concluded that there is no linguistic or behavioural evidence for a marking explanation of children's difficulty with ‘marked’ comparative adjectives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document