No abstract

We propose that the clinical heterogeneity of GS can in part be explained by the underlying or variant.

As part of its flagship educational study -the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) -the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has undertaken extensive work to create an internationally relevant composite indicator aimed at measuring socioeconomic background. However, the degree to which a single measure of socioeconomic background is reliable and valid for all participating countries is not widely discussed. To fill this gap, the authors examine the home possessions index, which is a key component of PISA's socioeconomic indicator, and highlight a number of issues surrounding this index. In particular, they take a psychometric approach to investigating the reliability and some facets of the validity of the home possessions index in a number of participating PISA countries. Their findings suggest that there are notable concerns with the current index, including highly variable reliability by country, poor modelto-data consistency on a number of subscales, and evidence of poor cultural comparability. They couch their discussion in the context of educational and policy research and propose one possible method for improving these measures for participating countries.

BackgroundMeasurement-based care is an evidence-based practice for depression that efficiently identifies treatment non-responders and those who might otherwise deteriorate [1]. However, measurement-based care is underutilized in community mental health with data suggesting fewer than 20 % of behavioral health providers using this practice to inform treatment. It remains unclear whether standardized or tailored approaches to implementation are needed to optimize measurement-based care fidelity and penetration. Moreover, there is some suggestion that prospectively tailored interventions that are designed to fit the dynamic context may optimize public health impact, though no randomized trials have yet tested this notion [2]. This study will address the following three aims: (1) To compare the effect of standardized versus tailored MBC implementation on clinician-level and client-level outcomes; (2) To identify contextual mediators of MBC fidelity; and (3) To explore the impact of MBC fidelity on client outcomes.Methods/designThis study is a dynamic cluster randomized trial of standardized versus tailored measurement-based care implementation in Centerstone, the largest provider of community-based mental health services in the USA. This prospective, mixed methods implementation-effectiveness hybrid design allows for evaluation of the two conditions on both clinician-level (e.g., MBC fidelity) and client-level (depression symptom change) outcomes. Central to this investigation is the focus on identifying contextual factors (e.g., attitudes, resources, process, etc.) that mediate MBC fidelity and optimize client outcomes.DiscussionThis study will contribute generalizable and practical strategies for implementing systematic symptom monitoring to inform and enhance behavioral healthcare.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02266134.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0313-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

. Her research focuses on quantitative methods, particularly as they pertain to latent variable models for international assessment and measuring heterogeneous populations.DAVID RUTKOWSKI, PhD, is a professor of educational measurement at the University of Oslo, Centre for Educational Measurement; david.rutkowski@cemo.uio.no. His research focuses on educational assessment of heterogeneous populations and how international largescale assessments are used to inform policy.

No abstract

No abstract