Search

Objective The purpose of the present research is to establish measurement equivalence and test differences in reliability between computerized and pencil-and-paper-based tests of spatial cognition. Background Researchers have increasingly adopted computerized test formats, but few attempt to establish equivalence for computer-based and paper-based tests. The mixed results in the literature on the test mode effect, which occurs when performance differs as a function of test medium, highlight the need to test for, instead of assume, measurement equivalence. One domain that has been increasingly computerized and is thus in need of tests of measurement equivalence across test mode is spatial cognition. Method In the present study, 244 undergraduate students completed two measures of spatial ability (i.e., spatial visualization and cross-sectioning) in either computer- or paper-and-pencil-based format. Results Measurement equivalence was not supported across computer-based and paper-based formats for either spatial test. The results also indicated that test administration type affected the types of errors made on the spatial visualization task, which further highlights the conceptual differences between test mediums. Paper-based tests also demonstrated increased reliability when compared with computerized versions of the tests. Conclusion The results of the measurement equivalence tests caution against treating computer- and paper-based versions of spatial measures as equivalent. We encourage subsequent work to demonstrate test mode equivalence prior to the utilization of spatial measures because current evidence suggests they may not reliably capture the same construct. Application The assessment of test type differences may influence the medium in which spatial cognition tests are administered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are the gold standard. However, significant barriers limit their use in the primary care setting, including limited knowledge of the medications and stigmatizing attitudes. In this study, we assess knowledge levels among primary care-aligned professionals (PCPs) currently in practice, and whether knowledge of MOUD is associated with stigma and treatment attitudes., Participants and Methods: Using rosters from the state of Ohio licensing boards, we surveyed 403 physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician associates in 2022, on the mechanism of different MOUD, as well as stigma and treatment attitudes. To assess MOUD knowledge, we employed descriptive and bivariate statistics. We fit four linear regression models, which controlled for empathy towards patients with OUD and provider demographics to assess the relationship between MOUD knowledge and four endpoints: stigma, perceived controllability of opioid use, perceived vulnerability to opioid use disorder, and support for abstinence-only treatment., Results: 43% of participants correctly identified the mechanism of all 3 medications whereas 13% of participants did not identify the mechanism of any MOUD correctly. MOUD knowledge was higher among physicians as compared to nurse practitioners and physician associates. Lower MOUD knowledge was associated with more negative attitudes towards patients with OUD and MOUD treatment., Conclusion: Expanding access to MOUD treatment requires a trained and willing health-care professional (HCP) workforce. Our findings highlight considerable variation in clinician knowledge of MOUD and suggest that knowledge levels are also related to negative attitudes towards patients with OUD and MOUD. Training interventions that increase knowledge, as well as focus on stigma reduction, are critical for reducing the longstanding treatment gap for opioid use disorder.