Search

Vor der China International Import Expo (CIIE) im November 2021 führten wir eine Studie mit Geschäftsleuten aus Brasilien, Mexiko und Deutschland durch, die eine auf Verhandlungen mit Chinesen ausgerichtete Fortbildung angefragt hatten, um gut auf diese Messe vorbereitet zu sein. Um mehr über deren besonderen Bedürfnisse herauszufinden, verteilten wir einen Fragebogen vor dem Verhandlungstraining, in dem wir ihre Ansichten über Verhandlungen im Allgemeinen und ihre genauen Bedürfnisse in Bezug auf Verhandlungen mit chinesischen Geschäftsleuten erfragten. Unserer Analyse der 57 Rückantworten zufolge interessierten sich die befragten Geschäftsleute am meisten für die Entwicklung von Verhandlungsdenken, den Umgang mit vertragsbezogenen Themen und den Aufbau von Vertrauen und stabilen Geschäftsbeziehungen. Hinsichtlich der Verhandlungen mit chinesischen Geschäftsleuten legten die Teilnehmer einen besonderen Fokus auf das Erkennen von Entscheidungsträgern im chinesischen Verhandlungsteam, den Umgang mit rechtlichen Belangen in Verhandlungen und die typisch chinesischen moralischen Wertvorstellungen in Bezug auf das Geschäftsleben. In Kooperation mit dem Trainingsanbieter wurden unsere Studienergebnisse dazu verwendet, um das nachfolgende Training auf die Bedürfnisse der zukünftigen Teilnehmer zuzuschneiden. Um die Auswirkungen eines solchen modifizierten Trainings zu untersuchen, baten wir die ehemaligen Fortbildungsteilnehmer – nach der Gelegenheit, das Gelernte im realen Umfeld der CIIE anzuwenden – in einem zweiten Fragebogen verschiedene Aspekte ihres Trainings zu evaluieren und sich zu zukünftigen Fortbildungsinteressen zu äußern. Das äußerst positive Feedback der 49 Umfrageteilnehmer bestärkt unsere Annahme, dass die Inhalte von Verhandlungstrainings auf die Bedürfnisse der Teilnehmer zugeschnitten sein sollten und dass wir einen möglichen Weg aufgezeigt haben, wie solche Daten erhoben und evaluiert werden können.

We investigated whether standardized neuropsychological tests and experimental cognitive paradigms measure the same cognitive faculties. Specifically, do neuropsychological tests commonly used to assess attention measure the same construct as attention paradigms used in cognitive psychology and neuroscience? We built on the "general attention factor", comprising several widely used experimental paradigms (Huang et al., 2012). Participants (n = 636) completed an on-line battery (TestMyBrain.org) of six experimental tests [Multiple Object Tracking, Flanker Interference, Visual Working Memory, Approximate Number Sense, Spatial Configuration Visual Search, and Gradual Onset Continuous Performance Task (Grad CPT)] and eight neuropsychological tests [Trail Making Test versions A & B (TMT-A, TMT-B), Digit Symbol Coding, Forward and Backward Digit Span, Letter Cancellation, Spatial Span, and Arithmetic]. Exploratory factor analysis in a subset of 357 participants identified a five-factor structure: (1) attentional capacity (Multiple Object Tracking, Visual Working Memory, Digit Symbol Coding, Spatial Span); (2) search (Visual Search, TMT-A, TMT-B, Letter Cancellation); (3) Digit Span; (4) Arithmetic; and (5) Sustained Attention (GradCPT). Confirmatory analysis in 279 held-out participants showed that this model fit better than competing models. A hierarchical model where a general cognitive factor was imposed above the five specific factors fit as well as the model without the general factor. We conclude that Digit Span and Arithmetic tests should not be classified as attention tests. Digit Symbol Coding and Spatial Span tap attentional capacity, while TMT-A, TMT-B, and Letter Cancellation tap search (or attention-shifting) ability. These five tests can be classified as attention tests.

Many randomized experiments in the social sciences allocate subjects to treatment arms at the time the subjects enroll. Desirable features of the mechanism used to assign subjects to treatment arms are often (1) equal numbers of subjects in intervention and control arms, (2) balanced allocation for population subgroups and across covariates, (3) ease of use, and (4) inability for a site worker to predict the treatment arm for a subject before he or she has been assigned. In general, a trade-off must be made among these features: Many mechanisms that achieve high balance do so at the cost of high predictability. In this article, we review methods for randomized assignment of individuals that have been discussed in the literature, evaluating the performance of each with respect to the desirable design features. We propose a method for controlling the amount of predictability in a study while achieving high balance across subgroups and covariates. The method is applicable when a database containing the subgroup membership and covariates of each potential participant is available in advance. We use simple simulation and graphical methods to evaluate the balance and predictability of randomization mechanisms when planning the study and describe a computer program implemented in the "R" statistical software package that prospectively evaluates candidate randomization methods.

Although coordinated specialty care (CSC) is an effective service model to address first-episode psychosis, CSC is not widely accessible in the United States, and funding for this service model often remains challenging. The authors examined whether community- or program-level factors predict the use of public and private funding streams in a national sample of 34 CSC programs in 22 U.S. states and territories. As part of a larger mixed-methods study, CSC program leaders completed a brief questionnaire regarding funding sources. Statistical modeling was used to examine program- and community-level predictors of the use of funding sources. Most CSC programs (20 of 34, 59%) reported that Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funds accounted for more than half of their total funding, and 11 of these programs reported that these funds contributed to >75% of their funding. Programs ≤5 years old were more likely to rely on MHBG set-aside funds. Programs in Medicaid expansion states were more likely to rely on Medicaid funding than programs in nonexpansion states. Programs in higher-income service catchment areas used more state funds than did those in lower-income areas, and among programs in lower-income service catchment areas, those that were >4 years old were more likely than those ≤4 years old to rely on state funds other than Medicaid. CSC programs remain largely dependent on MHBG set-aside funding. Some programs have diversified their funding streams, most notably by including more Medicaid and other state funding. A more comprehensive funding approach is needed to reduce reliance on the MHBG set-aside funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]