Search

Simple Summary: Severity of pain, an important parameter in clinical decision making, is subjective. The Equine Acute Abdominal Pain Scale (EAAPS) was evaluated for the first time in 237 horses presenting with colic (abdominal pain) at two equine hospitals; in Israel and in the United Kingdom. The EAAPS demonstrated validity and was reportedly quick and easy to use. The EAAPS is the only equine pain scale that has been tested to this extent for these properties on clinical cases in equine hospitals. Use of the EAAPS apparently requires no training, is easy to use in clinical cases, and can improve equine welfare. Assessment of the severity of pain in colic cases is subjective. The Equine Acute Abdominal Pain Scale (EAAPS), previously validated using film clips of horses with colic, was tested for feasibility and revalidated in both medical and surgical colic cases in Israel and the UK. Feasibility qualities evaluated were quickness and ease-of-use. Pain in 231 horses, presented for colic, was assessed by 35 participants; 26 in the UK and 9 in Israel. Without prior training, participants assessed the severity of pain using two scales; the EAAPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Convergent validity comparing the EAAPS to the VAS was substantial, discriminant validity was good, and predictive validity for surgical treatment was similar to the VAS, but for mortality, the VAS was significantly better. No participants reported the EAAPS to be "very slow" or "very difficult" to use. The mode reported was "quick"/"very quick" and "easy"/"very easy" to use, though in less than 10% of cases, it was reported to be a little less quick or easy. More experienced first-time users found it significantly quicker to use than less experienced participants. In conclusion, the EAAPS is the only equine pain assessment scale that has been tested and found to demonstrate good feasibility for use in the referral hospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent transformation of the workplaces and labor market, characterized by rapid technological changes, social and economic instability, has greatly influenced the construction of people's career paths. These paths cannot be viewed more as linear, but multifaceted and unstable. In organizational context, the psychological contract has changed from long term to short term. In this scenario, the construct of employability becomes central: people need to maintain and improve their ability to be attractive to the labor market to get or keep a job. The study presents the adaptation of the Self-Perceived Employability Scale to the Italian context. The participants are 660 Italian workers. The instruments used to verify the concurrent validity of the scale were the Employability Scale, the Flourishing Scale, the Satisfaction With Life Scale, the Organizational Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale. Results showed good psychometric properties of the Italian version in terms of internal consistency, construct and concurrent validity, with significant correlations with all the other measures. The CFA highlights some dissimilarity in the scale's structure compared to the UK version, probably due to cultural differences among the samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to test the validity of the Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ) in a NZ sample and to evaluate possible cross-cultural differences in MIQ data between a NZ and a UK sample. A cross-sectional, non-random sample of young people, aged 10–16 years, attending their first appointment at the orthodontic clinic of New Zealand's National Centre for Dentistry were asked to complete a questionnaire. This consisted of the 17 item MIQ, the short form CPQ11-14-ISF16 and two global questions. Some basic demographic and clinical data were collected. Sixty-six participants completed the questionnaire; however, the data for 2 were excluded due to the number of incomplete responses. MIQ was found to have excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.924), good construct validity (Spearman's rho, 0.661 global Q1 'Overall, how much do your teeth bother you?'; 0.583 global Q2 'Overall, how much do your teeth affect your life?'). MIQ also demonstrated good criterion validity with CPQ11-14-ISF16 (Pearson rho, 0.625). The Rasch analysis confirmed that the questionnaire performed similarly and there was no differential item functioning between the two populations. The main differences between the samples were that the young people in NZ were less concerned about their malocclusion and reported lower item-impact scores compared with the young people in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]