Search

I. Introduction Church property disputes are nothing new to the legal system, (1) but the debate over how to resolve them remains an open topic in First Amendment jurisprudence. Early [...]

This study examines the validity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D‐KEFS) in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) population compared to participants with orthopaedic injuries and normative controls. The utility of the D‐KEFS was examined using a between groups design. One hundred patients with mild uncomplicated to severe TBI were recruited from a consecutive cohort of patients admitted as inpatients to a UK Major Trauma Centre and compared to 823 participants from the D‐KEFS normative sample and 26 participants with orthopaedic injuries. Data were filtered for performance validity. Sample discrimination was calculated from D‐KEFS subtest scores and derived index scores. Sensitivity to TBI severity was established. The TBI participants performed significantly lower on the D‐KEFS Trail Making Test, Colour Word Interference, Colour Word Switching, Letter Fluency and Verbal Fluency Category Switching Total Words Correct. The D‐KEFS index scores discriminated between TBI, orthopaedic and normative participants with large and moderate effect sizes, respectively. The D‐KEFS demonstrated a dose–response relationship with TBI severity. These effects were robust to differences in premorbid intellectual functioning; however, D‐KEFS performance was sensitive to performance on tests of mental processing speed. The use of a D‐KEFS index score provides a robust and reliable discrimination of TBI patients from healthy control participants. This discrimination is not accounted for by premorbid intellect or the non‐specific effects of trauma. The clinical and conceptual implications of these findings are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), a symbol of western North America, experienced diverging population trajectories since the mid‐twentieth century, with northern populations showing signs of recovery while those in the arid Southwest have struggled to persist. We conducted a systematic literature review of papers published through August 2023 to understand 3 questions. What are the habitat conditions needed for pronghorn to persist? What management actions can be taken to foster higher quality habitat? Do these actions differ for populations in the arid Southwest compared to their northern counterparts? Although the fundamental habitat requirements for pronghorn persistence have remained constant since the early 2000s, it has become clear that precipitation is a key factor influencing pronghorn populations in the arid Southwest. The precise mechanisms by which precipitation influences pronghorn population dynamics are not yet clear, whether through the availability of free water, by affecting forage quality, or indirectly via predator‐prey dynamics. Although range‐wide forage enhancement may be impractical, providing additional free water sources could facilitate greater movement, enabling pronghorn to access more and higher quality forage and areas with lower predation risk. To clarify how pronghorn persisted for thousands of years in this harsh environment, we must gain a better understanding of their historical metapopulation and migratory behaviors in the arid Southwest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the need for further research evaluating the validity of conducting a battery of neuropsychological assessments virtually compared with face‐to‐face administration. Previous research has suggested that some neuropsychological assessments yield valid results when administered virtually, however, much of the previous research focused on older adults. To determine the validity of virtually administered neuropsychological tests, 28 healthy participants were assessed using a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery covering tests of general intellectual functioning, memory and attention, executive functioning, language and information processing speed, as well as effort. There was no significant difference between face‐to‐face administration of the neuropsychological battery compared with virtual administration for the majority of the tests used. However, there were significant differences in the Colour Naming Task, with participants making fewer errors on the colour naming task and inhibition/switching task when administered virtually compared with face‐to‐face administration. There was also a significant age cohort effect in the inhibition/switching task. There was also a trending significant difference in mode of administration for the Verbal Fluency Task. Virtually administered neuropsychological assessments largely provide a valid alternative to face‐to‐face assessments; however, consideration must be given to test selection as well as the population of participants that are being assessed. Other important considerations must focus on preserving the security and integrity of test materials, as well as administration in a medico‐legal setting. Future research should focus on validating assessments with specific patient populations and developing a neuropsychological assessment battery using information technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]