Search

A body of research indicates the importance of interventions for promoting the development and progress of children with visual impairments. However, the research available on suitable interventions for this population is relatively sparse. The purpose of this review is to identify, collate and appraise the available research evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators of interventions for children with visual impairments, their parents/guardians or educators. A systematic scoping search of peer-reviewed literature (including grey literature) was conducted from 15 June 2016 to 7 August 2016 and 2 May 2019 to 5 May 2019. Initial searches identified 6802 papers with 15 meeting the inclusion criteria. Three additional articles were identified through hand searching giving a final total of 18 included studies. The methodological quality score of the studies was variable with 61% scored in the average quality range. Sensory strategies, a family-centred approach, in-service training and routines-based activities were identified as implementation facilitators. Barriers were a lack of adaptive equipment and training for parents and professionals, complicating factors associated with the child's disability and an absence of specialists in interventions. Effective intervention strategies differ for this targeted population which requires individualised applications associated with teacher and parent/guardian training. For health or education professionals who work with children with visual impairments, the outcomes of this review suggest that a detailed assessment and identification of the individualised needs of children and their families, coupled with carefully designed and tested support practices to meet their individualised needs as well as promoting integrated working between health and care services, can optimise the positive implications for future practice. Along with this, future consideration should be given to the identification of the needs of children with visual impairments and additional disabilities in order to facilitate the adjustment of intervention strategies for this group.

A critical assumption in cross-cultural comparative research is that the instrument measures the same construct(s) in exactly the same way across all groups (i.e., the instrument is measurement and structurally equivalent). Structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures are commonly used in testing these assumptions of multigroup equivalence. However, when comparisons comprise large-scale cross-cultural studies, the standard SEM strategy can be extremely problematic both statistically and substantively. Based on responses to a 14-item version of the Family Values Scale (Georgas, 1999) by 5,482 university students from 27 nations around the globe, we describe and illustrate these difficulties. We propose and report on a dual modal two-pronged strategy that focuses on countries as well as scale items in determining the possible sources of bias. Suggestions for minimizing problems in tests for multigroup equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies are proffered. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 9 notes.)

The Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) is a worldwide association for all interested in medical and health professions education (http://www.amee.org). AMEE organizes an annual meeting, the most recent of which (2005) was held in Amsterdam. At this meeting certain countries and regions were better represented than others, while some countries with large populations or a significant role in the history of medical education were almost completely absent from the international scene. At the same time, the themes addressed at the AMEE conference concern issues of international interest, and appear to be leading to internationalization of pedagogical and research methods and policies for educational standards. It is therefore crucial that all parts of the medical education world be well represented. This paper illustrates both the strengths and imbalances of AMEE as a forum for the elaboration of international activities and standards in medical education. Finally, the authors wonder why a tendency to assume international generalizability of concepts and perspectives in medical education is not accompanied by studies that compare and contrast medical education methods, research and values between countries and cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]