PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3035120

Behaviorally based clinical evaluation.

Abstract

For the past two years this clinical evaluation tool has been revised biannually by the original committee. Feedback has been solicited from the entire faculty and incorporated into the subsequent revisions. In using the tool it is apparent that there are benefits for both students and faculty. Evaluation of the student is simplified because it is based on behaviorally described competencies. Because of this, consistency is further assured regardless of the number of evaluators. The faculty not only have a tool that is short and manageable enough to provide daily feedback but they also have the ease of using pass or fail for most of the evaluations. Students are better able to channel their energies and ultimately their behaviors to focus on necessary competencies to become an effective care giver. Students have the benefit of objective evaluation of their behaviors with an opportunity for daily feedback. The student is aware of expected performance levels prior to evaluation as well as the need for progress in those competencies. While the tool in its present format still has some shortcomings, the entire faculty have had the pleasure of knowing that as a group they have created a workable and discriminating evaluation tool.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B L Tower, T V Majewski. 1987. Behaviorally based clinical evaluation.. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19870301-10

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The inversion In(2L)t impacts complex, environmentally sensitive behaviors in Drosophila melanogaster.

Genetic variation in behavioral traits allows organisms to respond and adapt to environmental challenges. Genetic variation in behavior is often affected by many genes and thus has a complex genetic basis. Inversions, the reorientation of genes along the chromosome, tightly link genetic variants together because they suppress recombination. Therefore, inversions are believed to have a major impact on phenotypic variation because they combine the effects of multiple genes, which can pleiotropically alter multiple aspects of behavior. This study investigates how the inversion In(2L)t, found in Drosophila melanogaster populations around the world, impacts different aspects of behavior in an environment-sensitive manner. We test the activity, foraging, and startle-induced behavior of flies with different In(2L)t genotypes across sex and temperatures. We observe that Drosophila homozygous for In(2L)t sleep less frequently, spend more time away from a food source, and have a longer duration of startle response. Additionally, the impacts of In(2L)t on aspects of behavior can be sex-specific and are largely consistent across temperatures. Taken together, our research demonstrates that inversions can regulate aspects of behavior, and suggests hypotheses explaining the distribution of In(2L)t across space and time.

Behavior

[Genes, behavior and disease. A sceptic's view of gene mapping and gene therapy].

This paper contains four parts. The first focuses on The Human Genome Project (HGP). The concept of a "normal sequence" seems problematic. The second part reviews what is meant by "genetically-caused" and by "a (several) gene(s) for a trait". Genes work in concert, and it is likely that many genes together influence most complex traits. A difference in traits between two individuals, however, can be due to a difference in a single gene, as is the case for several thousand rare "genetic diseases". Such diseases were the original focus of gene therapy. Could gene therapy also be applied to more common complex traits? Diagnostic problems and the unsuccessful attempts to find a single gene difference in patients with manic depressive disorder, schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are discussed. Part three reviews future genetic research into complex traits and what kind of treatment can realistically be expected. It is concluded that improved diagnostics is the most likely outcome, not therapy. Part four raises arguments from the emerging Darwinian approach to medicine and states that it is far too early to even think of gene therapy. The needed knowledge about genes, behaviour and disease will not come from the one-sided genetic effort represented by HGP, and the resources should instead be invested in several different approaches to these complex issues.

Behavior