Search

Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent., Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies., Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar., Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review., Conclusions: Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Shepperd, Yousefi. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This article reports our experience in developing a computerized cognitive assessment method in a nurse-led clinic. The assessment and report-writing time and the accuracy of using a computer as an assessment medium were compared with assessments that use the traditional pencil-and-paper method. The attitudes of professionals and service users toward the computerized approach were also collected. The results found that the computerized approach not only helped to reduce the time spent making assessments and writing reports but also improved the accuracy of the assessment when compared with the pencil-and-paper method. Most of the professionals and service users who were interviewed responded positively toward computerized assessments. The experience gained in this study will also help us to standardize our assessment procedures, promote communication among members of the clinical team, and facilitate data management and clinical research.

Clinical reasoning competency is essential for an appropriate clinical dental treatment. Among the tools for the assessment of clinical reasoning competency, computer-based testing (CBT) is considered more useful than paper-based testing (PBT), because teachers can control the timing of information given to the examinees. Such timings could possibly affect the thinking process of examinees. However, few studies reported differences of reasoning between the two testing modes. In the present study, we developed an assessment of clinical reasoning and applied it using CBT and PBT to compare the examinees' performance. The participants comprised 60 students in the fifth-year class in 2012 of the School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The tests comprised 25 problems, each with four questions, totaling 100 questions. The contents of the questions were the same in CBT and PBT. The students were assigned to CBT (Group C, n = 30) and PBT (Group P, n = 30) groups, with an almost equal gender ratio in the groups. The difference between scores was analyzed with a univariate analysis of variance. No significant intergroup differences were found regarding the test duration, total score, and average score of each question. The number of problems with perfect marks was higher in Group P than in Group C (P < 0.05), probably because Group P students could access the information of the previous question (s) within a problem. Thus, the differences of the examinees' performance between the two testing modes were small.

Unlabelled: CONSTRUCT: In this study, we examine the differences in test performance between the paper-based and the computer-based version of the Berlin formative Progress Test. In this context it is the first study that allows controlling for students' prior performance., Background: Computer-based tests make possible a more efficient examination procedure for test administration and review. Although university staff will benefit largely from computer-based tests, the question arises if computer-based tests influence students' test performance., Approach: A total of 266 German students from the 9th and 10th semester of medicine (comparable with the 4th-year North American medical school schedule) participated in the study (paper = 132, computer = 134). The allocation of the test format was conducted as a randomized matched-pair design in which students were first sorted according to their prior test results. The organizational procedure, the examination conditions, the room, and seating arrangements, as well as the order of questions and answers, were identical in both groups., Results: The sociodemographic variables and pretest scores of both groups were comparable. The test results from the paper and computer versions did not differ. The groups remained within the allotted time, but students using the computer version (particularly the high performers) needed significantly less time to complete the test. In addition, we found significant differences in guessing behavior. Low performers using the computer version guess significantly more than low-performing students in the paper-pencil version., Conclusions: Participants in computer-based tests are not at a disadvantage in terms of their test results. The computer-based test required less processing time. The reason for the longer processing time when using the paper-pencil version might be due to the time needed to write the answer down, controlling for transferring the answer correctly. It is still not known why students using the computer version (particularly low-performing students) guess at a higher rate. Further studies are necessary to understand this finding.

Background: Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Methods: A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty-nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Results: Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = -0.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = -0.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = -0.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = -0.33 and g = -0.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = 0.08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = 0.20). Conclusions: Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.

This article describes how with the advent of computer-based technology, there is movement from manual to automated systems for different aspects of the education system. Testing is an essential part of teaching process that helps academics in classifying the level of students and evaluating the outcomes of their teaching process. The testing process requires a large amount of attention and professionalism. Automated Test Paper Generation is a system applying the shuffling algorithm in designing different sets of questions without repetition and duplication. It helps the faculty in developing and designing exams with a particular level of difficulty required in evaluating the students by using the utility-based agent. The system includes a knowledge base of many questions' types that are linked to a test engine where the faculty can specify the type and the difficulty level of the exam and then the system will assemble the exam and produce the output as electronic or paper-based. Questions will be picked randomly from the knowledge database. This automated system provides cost saving and time efficient solutions.

Students in a computer technology course completed either a paper-and-pencil test (n=40) or an online test in a proctored computer lab (n=43). Test scores were equivalent, but the online group, particularly freshmen, completed the test in less time. Online testing time did not correlate with test score. (Contains 30 references.) (SK)

A thermal stability analysis method of meta-aramid insulating paper based on computer molecular dynamics technology is designed in this paper. First, the raw materials and equipment for preparing meta-aramid insulating paper were determined to prepare meta-aramid insulating paper. Then, the internal structure and morphology of meta-aramid insulating paper are analyzed for the subsequent stability analysis. Finally, the basic principle of computer molecular dynamics technology is analyzed, which is used to analyze the thermal stability of meta-aramid insulating paper, mainly from the stability of its crystal region. The experimental results show that the proposed method is effective and feasible in analyzing the thermal stability of aramid insulating paper between samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Computer works are associated with Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs). There are several methods have been developed to assess computer work risk factor related to MSDs., Objective: This review aims to give an overview of current techniques available for pen-and-paper-based observational methods in assessing ergonomic risk factors of computer work., Methods: We searched an electronic database for materials from 1992 until 2015. The selected methods were focused on computer work, pen-and-paper observational methods, office risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders. This review was developed to assess the risk factors, reliability and validity of pen-and-paper observational method associated with computer work. Two evaluators independently carried out this review., Results: Seven observational methods used to assess exposure to office risk factor for work-related musculoskeletal disorders were identified. The risk factors involved in current techniques of pen and paper based observational tools were postures, office components, force and repetition. From the seven methods, only five methods had been tested for reliability. They were proven to be reliable and were rated as moderate to good. For the validity testing, from seven methods only four methods were tested and the results are moderate., Conclusion: Many observational tools already exist, but no single tool appears to cover all of the risk factors including working posture, office component, force, repetition and office environment at office workstations and computer work. Although the most important factor in developing tool is proper validation of exposure assessment techniques, the existing observational method did not test reliability and validity. Futhermore, this review could provide the researchers with ways on how to improve the pen-and-paper-based observational method for assessing ergonomic risk factors of computer work.

Background: Taking notes during learning has benefits both during class (through writing things down to encode information) and after class (by using written notes as external storage for revision). Comparisons of note‐taking methods (i.e., using paper or a computer) have mainly shown that paper leads to better learning. However, previous studies have mostly been conducted in laboratory contexts. Aims: The current study investigates university students' perceptions of the efficacity of their own preferred note‐taking method, along with the strategies they employ. Sample: Data were collected from 108 university students. Methods: Students answered a questionnaire about their note‐taking strategies during initial note‐taking (in class) and revision (after class). Results: The results show that students who take notes on paper do not consider their method to be more effective, but they report engaging in more reformulation and less multitasking. Students who take notes on a computer are more likely to reformat their notes, and thus to reformulate at a later stage. For all students, review sheets are mostly done on paper. Conclusions: These results suggest that although students are not necessarily aware of the benefits of reformulation associated with handwriting on paper during initial note‐taking, when revising, they tend to choose handwriting and benefit from reformulation when aiming for deeper processing. Therefore, revision activities remain mainly paper‐based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether patients with stroke receiving rehabilitation for upper limb deficits using smart technology (video and reminder functions) demonstrate greater adherence to prescribed home exercise programmes and better functional outcomes when compared with traditional paper-based exercise prescription., Design: Randomized controlled trial comparing upper limb home exercise programmes supported by video and automated reminders on smart technology, with standard paper-based home exercise programmes., Setting: A community rehabilitation programme within a large metropolitan health service., Subjects: Patients with stroke with upper limb deficits, referred for outpatient rehabilitation., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to the control (paper-based home exercise programme) or intervention group (home exercise programme filmed on an electronic tablet, with an automated reminder). Both groups completed their prescribed home exercise programme for four weeks., Main Measures: The primary outcome was adherence using a self-reported log book. Secondary outcomes were change in upper limb function and patient satisfaction., Results: A total of 62 participants were allocated to the intervention ( n = 30) and control groups ( n = 32). There were no differences between the groups for measures of adherence (mean difference 2%, 95% CI -12 to 17) or change in the Wolf Motor Function Test log transformed time (mean difference 0.02 seconds, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). There were no between-group differences in how participants found instructions ( p = 0.452), whether they remembered to do their exercises ( p = 0.485), or whether they enjoyed doing their exercises ( p = 0.864)., Conclusions: The use of smart technology was not superior to standard paper-based home exercise programmes for patients recovering from stroke. This trial design was registered prospectively with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, ID: ACTRN 12613000786796. http://www.anzctr.org.au/trialSearch.aspx.

The aim of this paper was to assess the validity and reliability of the touch-screen standard Portuguese version of the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs), compared with paper format, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scale (ASQoL), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and visual analogue scales (VAS) measuring pain and burden of disease. Adult patients with RA and spondyloarthritis attending the Portuguese Institute of Rheumatology were recruited from March 2013 to January 2014. Patients filled the paper and touch-screen formats of the standard Portuguese versions of the PROs. Two groups of VAS were used, RA and psoriatic arthritis (Global VAS) and another specific for spondyloarthrites (Spa-VAS). Paper questionnaires were filled 15 min before touch-screen formats. Agreement between formats (validity) was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while internal consistency of scales (reliability) was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Overall, 134 patients were included with a mean age of 51 years, 74.6 % female and 57.5 % presenting RA. BASDAI, BASFI, HAQ and ASQoL showed high ICC between paper and touch-screen formats (0.977, 0.958, 0.974 and 0.940, respectively). ICC for Global VAS ranged from 0.906 to 0.921, while Spa-VAS ranged from 0.867 to 0.943. The mean ICC for all SF-36 domains was 0.889 (ICC for each domain ranged from 0.781 to 0.944). Touch-screen standard Portuguese formats of these PROs may be valid and reliable tools for PRO measurement in rheumatology.

Explains how high school students may learn to use the Internet as a resource for writing research papers, and considers some of the special problems and dangers the new medium poses. Reviews basic hardware information and procedures for getting started on the Internet. (TB)