Nature-protective behavior cannot be sufficiently explained using a pure rational/cognitive approach. Therefore, in a questionnaire study ( N = 281), the focus was on emotional motivations of this behavior, especially on a newly conceptualized construct: emotional affinity toward nature. All constructs were measured by reliable and valid scales. Multiple regression analyses reveal that (a) emotional affinity is as powerful to predict nature-protective behavior as indignation and interest in nature and together these three predictors explain up to 47% of variance of the criterion variables, and (b) 39% of emotional affinity toward nature traces back to present and past experiences in natural environments. The resulting integrative path model is discussed. Theoretical conclusions are drawn, and options for practical intervention are derived.
Purpose To examine the reliability and attributable facets of variance within an entrustment-derived workplace-based assessment system. Method Faculty at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center internal medicine residency program (a 3-year program) assessed residents using discrete workplace-based skills called observable practice activities (OPAs) rated on an entrustment scale. Ratings from July 2012 to December 2016 were analyzed using applications of generalizability theory (G-theory) and decision study framework. Given the limitations of G-theory applications with entrustment ratings (the assumption that mean ratings are stable over time), a series of time-specific G-theory analyses and an overall longitudinal G-theory analysis were conducted to detail the reliability of ratings and sources of variance. Results During the study period, 166,686 OPA entrustment ratings were given by 395 faculty members to 253 different residents. Raters were the largest identified source of variance in both the time-specific and overall longitudinal G-theory analyses (37% and 23%, respectively). Residents were the second largest identified source of variation in the time-specific G-theory analyses (19%). Reliability was approximately 0.40 for a typical month of assessment (27 different OPAs, 2 raters, and 1–2 rotations) and 0.63 for the full sequence of ratings over 36 months. A decision study showed doubling the number of raters and assessments each month could improve the reliability over 36 months to 0.76. Conclusions Ratings from the full 36 months of the examined program of assessment showed fair reliability. Increasing the number of raters and assessments per month could improve reliability, highlighting the need for multiple observations by multiple faculty raters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.