Search

Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is rarely used in higher education, yet has much potential in informing decision-making. In this methodological paper, we describe the potential of SDT for different higher education contexts and demonstrate its practical application. Both the commonly used regression analyses and SDT analyses provide information on the accuracy of a predictor, and thus which instrument(s) to use. SDT analyses, in addition, provide information on the effects of setting specific cut-off scores on outcomes of interest. SDT provides the sensitivity and specificity information for the chosen instrument(s) at specific cut-off scores (criteria in SDT). This allows for evidence-informed, deliberate choice of cut-off scores to steer toward desired outcomes. Depending on how undesirable false positives and false negatives are considered in a specific situation, a lower or higher cut-off score can be deemed adequate. Using SDT analyses in our example, we demonstrate how to use the results to optimize “real-life” student selection. However, selection is only one of many decision-making practices where SDT is applicable and valuable. We outline some of the areas within higher education decision-making and quality assurance, where SDT can be applied to answer specific questions and optimize decision-making.

This article describes the main models for embedding research and the successful experiences and challenges faced in joint work by researchers and decisionmakers who participated in the Embedding Research for the Sustainable Development Goals (ER-SDG) initiative, and the experience of the Technical Support Center. In June 2018, funding was granted to 13 pre-selected research projects from 11 middle- and low-income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Paraguay, and Peru). The projects focused on the system-, policy-, or program-level changes required to improve health and build on the joint work of researchers and decisionmakers, with a view to bringing together evidence production and decision-making in health systems and services. The Technical Support Center supported and guided the production of quality results useful for decision-making. This experience confirmed the value of initiatives such as ER-SDG in consolidating bridges between research on the implementation of health policies, programs, and systems, and the officials responsible for operating health-related programs, services, and interventions. It highlighted the importance of both respecting and taking advantage of each context-and the specific arrangements and patterns in the relationships between researchers and decisionmakers-through incentives for embedded research.

Data literacy comprises an important set of competencies in today’s society. Its rise in prominence can be traced to several developments: the exponential increase in data leading to unprecedented possibilities for transforming society; the global Open Data movement as a driving force in making data more accessible; and the evidence-informed policy movement. In the education sector, the latter is linked to the data-driven decision making movement, which refers to the use of data to inform education policy and practice at all levels. Because of these developments, data literacy is becoming embedded as an integral part of professional competencies for educators and education leaders. The purpose of the study was twofold: first, to investigate whether data literacy can be measured on a single scale of increasing proficiency, and second, to investigate the effect of different data presentation formats on data literacy within the context of evidence-informed education policy and practice. A data literacy test was developed which required participants to answer multiple-choice questions based on a set of research briefs. Participants consisted mainly of graduate students enrolled in an education-related degree and education researchers. An experimental design was used in which the treatment condition was the presentation format of the research briefs. Test participants (N = 127) were randomly assigned to one of three presentation formats – text-only, text plus tabulated data, and text plus visualization – where tabulated data and visualizations were constructed from information in the text. The findings from the test calibration supported the hypothesis of a hierarchical unidimensional data literacy scale. The interpretation of data literacy competencies along a log-linear scale replicated the hypothesized hierarchical development of data literacy levels. It was also hypothesized that text plus visualization would lead to higher levels of data literacy compared to the oth

Reviews of evidence are a vital means of summarising growing bodies of research. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to reduce bias and increase reliability when summarising high priority and controversial topics. Similar to SRs, systematic maps (SMs) were developed in social sciences to reliably catalogue evidence on a specific subject. Rather than providing answers to specific questions of impacts, SMs aim to produce searchable databases of studies, along with detailed descriptive information. These maps (consisting of a report, a database, and sometimes a geographical information system) can prove highly useful for research, policy and practice communities, by providing assessments of knowledge gaps (subjects requiring additional research), knowledge gluts (subjects where full SR is possible), and patterns across the research literature that promote best practice and direct research resources towards the highest quality research. Here, we introduce SMs in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

Reviews of evidence are a vital means of summarising growing bodies of research. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to reduce bias and increase reliability when summarising high priority and controversial topics. Similar to SRs, systematic maps (SMs) were developed in social sciences to reliably catalogue evidence on a specific subject. Rather than providing answers to specific questions of impacts, SMs aim to produce searchable databases of studies, along with detailed descriptive information. These maps (consisting of a report, a database, and sometimes a geographical information system) can prove highly useful for research, policy and practice communities, by providing assessments of knowledge gaps (subjects requiring additional research), knowledge gluts (subjects where full SR is possible), and patterns across the research literature that promote best practice and direct research resources towards the highest quality research. Here, we introduce SMs in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

Background Economic evaluation (EE) is a dynamically advancing knowledge area of health economics. It has been conceived to provide evidence for allocating scarce resources to gain the best value for money. The problem of efficiency of investments becomes even more crucial with advances in modern medicine and public health which bring about both improved patient outcomes and higher costs. Despite the abundance of literature on the EE concepts, some key notions including the definition of the economic evaluation remain open for discussion. Academic literature offers a large number and growing variety of EE definitions. It testifies to the fact that existing definitions do not meet economists’ requirements and they choose to create new definitions. Methods The aim of this study is to explore existing definitions, identify knowledge gaps and formulate a comprehensive EE definition. Several methodologies were used to achieve the research objective: identification of related peer-reviewed papers using Google Scholar and EBSCO databases (e.g. MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Center, Business Source Complete), critical literature review, critical thinking and inductive reasoning. Results The study identified and examined 60 existing non-identical EE definitions, revealed their common focus points and grouped them into 8 clusters. Conclusions Revealed common focus points were compared with the widely-accepted EE definition by Professor Michael Drummond and integrated in a comprehensive EE definition. A new, comprehensive definition of EE has been proposed, Fondo La evaluación económica (EE) es un área de conocimiento que avanza dinámicamente en la economía de la salud. Se ha concebido para proporcionar pruebas de la asignación de recursos escasos para obtener la mejor relación calidad-precio. El problema de la eficiencia de las inversiones se vuelve aún más crucial con los avances en la medicina moderna y la salud pública que traen tanto mejores resultados de los pacientes y mayores costos. A pesar de la abundancia de literatura sobre los conceptos de EE, algunas nociones claves incluyendo la definición de la evaluación económica permanecen abiertas para discusión. La literatura académica ofrece un gran número y variedad creciente de definiciones de EE. Prueba del hecho de que las definiciones existentes no cumplen los requisitos de los economistas y optan por crear nuevas definiciones. Métodos El objetivo de este estudio es explorar las definiciones existentes, identificar brechas de conocimiento y formular una definición global de EE. Se utilizaron varias metodologías para lograr el objetivo de la investigación: identificación de artículos relacionados revisados por pares utilizando las bases de datos de Google Scholar y EBSCO (por ejemplo, MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Center, Business Source Complete) revisión crítica de la literatura, pensamiento y razonamiento inductivo. Resultados El estudio identificó y examinó 60 definiciones no idénticas de EE, reveló sus puntos comunes de enfoque y los agrupó en 8 grupos. Conclusiones Los puntos de enfoque común revelados se compararon con la definición de EE ampliamente aceptada por el profesor Michael Drummond y se integraron en una definición comprensiva de EE. Se ha propuesto una nueva y amplia definición de EE.

Background Economic evaluation (EE) is a dynamically advancing knowledge area of health economics. It has been conceived to provide evidence for allocating scarce resources to gain the best value for money. The problem of efficiency of investments becomes even more crucial with advances in modern medicine and public health which bring about both improved patient outcomes and higher costs. Despite the abundance of literature on the EE concepts, some key notions including the definition of the economic evaluation remain open for discussion. Academic literature offers a large number and growing variety of EE definitions. It testifies to the fact that existing definitions do not meet economists’ requirements and they choose to create new definitions. Methods The aim of this study is to explore existing definitions, identify knowledge gaps and formulate a comprehensive EE definition. Several methodologies were used to achieve the research objective: identification of related peer-reviewed papers using Google Scholar and EBSCO databases (e.g. MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Center, Business Source Complete), critical literature review, critical thinking and inductive reasoning. Results The study identified and examined 60 existing non-identical EE definitions, revealed their common focus points and grouped them into 8 clusters. Conclusions Revealed common focus points were compared with the widely-accepted EE definition by Professor Michael Drummond and integrated in a comprehensive EE definition. A new, comprehensive definition of EE has been proposed, Fondo La evaluación económica (EE) es un área de conocimiento que avanza dinámicamente en la economía de la salud. Se ha concebido para proporcionar pruebas de la asignación de recursos escasos para obtener la mejor relación calidad-precio. El problema de la eficiencia de las inversiones se vuelve aún más crucial con los avances en la medicina moderna y la salud pública que traen tanto mejores resultados de los pacientes y mayores costos. A pesar de la abundancia de literatura sobre los conceptos de EE, algunas nociones claves incluyendo la definición de la evaluación económica permanecen abiertas para discusión. La literatura académica ofrece un gran número y variedad creciente de definiciones de EE. Prueba del hecho de que las definiciones existentes no cumplen los requisitos de los economistas y optan por crear nuevas definiciones. Métodos El objetivo de este estudio es explorar las definiciones existentes, identificar brechas de conocimiento y formular una definición global de EE. Se utilizaron varias metodologías para lograr el objetivo de la investigación: identificación de artículos relacionados revisados por pares utilizando las bases de datos de Google Scholar y EBSCO (por ejemplo, MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Center, Business Source Complete) revisión crítica de la literatura, pensamiento y razonamiento inductivo. Resultados El estudio identificó y examinó 60 definiciones no idénticas de EE, reveló sus puntos comunes de enfoque y los agrupó en 8 grupos. Conclusiones Los puntos de enfoque común revelados se compararon con la definición de EE ampliamente aceptada por el profesor Michael Drummond y se integraron en una definición comprensiva de EE. Se ha propuesto una nueva y amplia definición de EE.

Reviews of evidence are a vital means of summarising growing bodies of research. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to reduce bias and increase reliability when summarising high priority and controversial topics. Similar to SRs, systematic maps (SMs) were developed in social sciences to reliably catalogue evidence on a specific subject. Rather than providing answers to specific questions of impacts, SMs aim to produce searchable databases of studies, along with detailed descriptive information. These maps (consisting of a report, a database, and sometimes a geographical information system) can prove highly useful for research, policy and practice communities, by providing assessments of knowledge gaps (subjects requiring additional research), knowledge gluts (subjects where full SR is possible), and patterns across the research literature that promote best practice and direct research resources towards the highest quality research. Here, we introduce SMs in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

Reviews of evidence are a vital means of summarising growing bodies of research. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to reduce bias and increase reliability when summarising high priority and controversial topics. Similar to SRs, systematic maps (SMs) were developed in social sciences to reliably catalogue evidence on a specific subject. Rather than providing answers to specific questions of impacts, SMs aim to produce searchable databases of studies, along with detailed descriptive information. These maps (consisting of a report, a database, and sometimes a geographical information system) can prove highly useful for research, policy and practice communities, by providing assessments of knowledge gaps (subjects requiring additional research), knowledge gluts (subjects where full SR is possible), and patterns across the research literature that promote best practice and direct research resources towards the highest quality research. Here, we introduce SMs in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

Reviews of evidence are a vital means of summarising growing bodies of research. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to reduce bias and increase reliability when summarising high priority and controversial topics. Similar to SRs, systematic maps (SMs) were developed in social sciences to reliably catalogue evidence on a specific subject. Rather than providing answers to specific questions of impacts, SMs aim to produce searchable databases of studies, along with detailed descriptive information. These maps (consisting of a report, a database, and sometimes a geographical information system) can prove highly useful for research, policy and practice communities, by providing assessments of knowledge gaps (subjects requiring additional research), knowledge gluts (subjects where full SR is possible), and patterns across the research literature that promote best practice and direct research resources towards the highest quality research. Here, we introduce SMs in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

Suicide is a global public health problem that is largely a problem within the Asian region. Suicide in Sri Lanka attracted attention due to the high numbers of deaths recorded from the 1990s onwards. The majority of these deaths were due to intentional ingestion of pesticides, commonly found within households. Suicide and self-poisoning continue to be one of the main causes of admission to hospital and one of the leading causes of death. In the late 1990’s Sri Lankan authorities took proactive steps to address the growing problem of suicide. The incidence of suicide-related mortality almost halved in a ten year period between 1995-2005. This drop in the incidence has been linked, in particular, to regulatory action on access to the most toxic pesticides. This research examined important aspects of how and why these decisions were made and the influences on the decision making process. It explored inter-related policymaking concepts of context, processes, evidence, actors and content utilising mixed methods. These included case study methodology, systematic review and evidence synthesis, meta-narrative analysis, and stakeholder analysis. The research also evaluated future policy options by applying policy analysis methodologies.By following a specific policy decision, the research found that there was a complex interaction of factors that transformed during four phases of policymaking. However these factors contributed to developing building blocks for evidence informed policymaking in the later phases. The research contributed to understanding the central role researchers and epistemic community actors can play in forwarding policy agendas through the instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use of evidence. However this dominance in policy arena also resulted in the isolation of important stakeholder groups and voices from the social sciences. For this community to continue to be effective they need to continue to collaborate, encourage creativity, welcome diversity