Search

This progress report details the imaging and initial analysis of watermarks and countermarks present in antique, laid paper leaves from a partial, disbound blank book in the study collection of the Conservation Center at the Institute of Fine Arts at NYU. Preliminary review of watermark catalogues indicates that the paper, featuring the coat-of-arms of Le Tellier of three stars over three lizards, and a countermark reading "H. J. Cusson," dates roughly from the late seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries. Of the approximately 115 sheets, 20 were analysed using software developed by William A. Sethares (University of Wisconsin, Madison) and C. Richard Johnson, Jr. (Cornell University) to reliably predict whether individual papers were likely to have been made by the same papermaking mold. The programs allowed for the comparison of watermark and countermark shapes by comparison of the ratios of their internal proportions (WatermarkMarker), and the generation of animated overlay.gifs that fade from one image to the next, for instant visual comparison (WatermarkPointMarker and VisualizeOverlays). The incidence of watermarks and moldmates in the folios were also mapped using the VisCodex online collation visualization tool, developed by the University of Toronto Libraries, in collaboration with Dot Porter and Alberto Campagnolo. The results suggest that the stack of sheets was made from two papermaking molds, making the papers moldmates and twins. The progress report concludes with a hypothesis as to which watermark was connected to which countermark, and suggests that the connections between half-sheets may be more easily recreated after more sheets have been analyzed both visually, and with the software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS®), and single-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measures. Methods: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference. Results: For all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI's were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers. Conclusion: Across all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI's not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]