Explore the vast range of titles available.

The reservoir characteristics of tight sandstone gas reservoirs are characterized by low porosity and low permeability, which brings difficulties to the conventional pressure recovery well test in oil fields. The lower porosity and permeability greatly extend the test time. Radial flow was not detected when the oil well was shut down for more than one month. The well test curve showed strong multi-solution characteristics and could not obtain accurate formation parameters. In this paper, based on the characteristics of tight gas reservoirs, the well test interpretation method (PDA method) is applied to the application of production data. A set of explanations for using the production data to explain tight gas wells and carrying out capacity evaluation and prediction are proposed. The interpretation of the production data of 1 is compared with the interpretation results of the pressure recovery test of the well. The two methods have good consistency, and the multiple interpretation methods can better reduce the multi-solution of the well test interpretation, and verify the PDA. The feasibility of the method applied on tight gas wells, and finally the correctness of the method was verified by the capacity prediction method.

To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument-based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more-ambitious claims require more support than less-ambitious claims. Fourth, more-ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less-ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use.

Abstract Objectives Lyme disease (LD) incidence is increasing, but data suggest some clinicians are not fully aware of recommended procedures for ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests. The study objective was to assess clinicians’ knowledge and practices regarding LD testing in a high-incidence region. Methods We distributed surveys to 1,142 clinicians in the University of Vermont Medical Center region, of which 144 were completed (12.6% response rate). We also examined LD laboratory test results and logs of calls to laboratory customer service over a period of 2.5 years and 6 months, respectively. Results Most clinicians demonstrated basic knowledge of diagnostic protocols, but many misinterpreted Western blot results. For example, 42.4% incorrectly interpreted a positive immunoglobulin M result as an overall positive test in a patient with longstanding symptoms. Many also reported receiving patient requests for unvalidated tests. Conclusions Additional education and modifications to LD test ordering and reporting systems would likely reduce errors and improve patient care.

Concerns have recently been raised about the validity of scales used in the L2 motivational self system tradition, particularly in relation to sufficient discriminant validity among some of its scales. These concerns highlight the need to systematically examine the validity of scales used in this tradition. In this study, we therefore compiled a list of 18 scales in widespread use and administered them to Korean learners of English (N = 384). Testing the factorial structure of these scales using multiple exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic criteria revealed severe discriminant validity issues. For example, the ideal L2 self was not discriminant from linguistic self-confidence, suggesting that participant responses to such ideal L2 self items is not driven by actual–ideal discrepancies as previously presumed but more likely by self-efficacy beliefs. We discuss these results in the context of the need to encourage systematic psychometric validation research in the language motivation field.

The basic purpose of this book is to provide teachers and administrators with a manual, of sorts, designed to help them understand the nature of standardized tests and, in particular, the scores that result from them. The ultimate purpose of the book is to help them develop the skills necessary to incorporate these test scores into various types of instructional decision making - a process known as \"data-driven decision making\" - necessitated by the needs of their students. (DIPF/Orig.).

This second edition of Irving Weiner's classic comprehensive, clinician-friendly guide to utilizing the Rorschach for personality description has been revised to reflect both recent modifications in the Rorschach Comprehensive System and new evidence concerning the soundness and utility of Rorschach assessment. It integrates the basic ingredients of structural, thematic, behavioral, and sequence analysis strategies into systematic guidelines for describing personality functioning. It is divided into three parts. Part I concerns basic considerations in Rorschach testing and deals with conceptual and empirical foundations of the inkblot method and with critical issues in formulating and justifying Rorschach inferences. Part II is concerned with elements of interpretation that contribute to thorough utilization of data in a Rorschach protocol: the Comprehensive System search strategy; the complementary roles of projection and card pull in determining response characteristics; and the interpretive significance of structural variables, content themes, test behaviors, and the sequence in which various response characteristics occur. Each of the chapters presents and illustrates detailed guidelines for translating Rorschach findings into descriptions of structural and dynamic aspects of personality functioning. The discussion throughout emphasizes the implications of Rorschach data for personality assets and liabilities, with specific respect to adaptive and maladaptive features of the manner in which people attend to their experience, use ideation, modulate affect, manage stress, view themselves, and relate to others. Part III presents 10 case illustrations of how the interpretive principles delineated in Part II can be used to identify assets and liabilities in personality functioning and apply this information in clinical practice. These cases represent persons from diverse demographic backgrounds and demonstrate a broad range of personality styles and clinical issues. Discussion of these cases touches on numerous critical concerns in arriving at different diagnoses, formulating treatment plans, and elucidating structural and dynamic determinants of behavior. Contents: Preface. Part I: Basic Considerations in Rorschach Testing. The Nature of the Rorschach. Approaches to Rorschach Interpretation. Part II: Elements of Rorschach Interpretation. The Comprehensive System Search Strategy. Projection and Card Pull in Rorschach Responses. Interpreting Structural Variables. Interpreting Content Themes. Interpreting Test Behaviors. Conducting a Sequence Analysis. Part III: Identifying Adaptive Strengths and Weaknesses: Case Illustrations. Introduction to Case Illustrations. Attending to Experience. Using Ideation. Modulating Affect. Managing Stress. Viewing Oneself and Relating to Others.

The last two decades have witnessed a growing interest in the theoretical understanding of test fairness and the intricacies of the concept have led to a heated discussion about its main characteristics, on the one hand, and have called for its reconceptualization on the other hand. As a partial address of the call, this study intended to advance a measurement and structural model of the test fairness concept in the Iranian educational context. A 118-item questionnaire comprising 12 subscales was developed, pilot-tested, and then administered to 600 participants. The reliability indices of the subscales ranged from .87 to .97, and as for the full scale, Cronbach’s Alpha measure of internal consistency turned out to be .98. A set of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factorial Analyses were used to explore the interrelationships among the set of variables and to gauge the construct validity of the scales, with convergent and discriminant validity being ensured. A resulting model with a general higher-order factor (i.e., test fairness) and twelve lower-order factors of validity, construction and structure, administration, scoring, reporting, decision-making, consequences, security, explicitness, accountability, equality, and rights demonstrated the best fit, with the final solution explaining a total of 73.3 percent of the variance. The verified interplay between test fairness and the identified related factors confirmed fairness as a broad concept inclusive of test use validity. This finding entails that fairness as an all-encompassing and broad multi-disciplinary concept (Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.) might not be confined only to the testing context as is the case with validity. This idea in turn strengthens the idea that validity might possibly be incapable of justifying all intricacies of fairness in general and test fairness in particular.

Understanding the response process used by test takers when responding to multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is particularly important in evaluating the validity of score interpretations. Previous authors have recommended eye-tracking technology as a useful approach for collecting data on the processes test taker’s use to respond to test questions. This study proposes a new method for evaluating alternative score interpretations by using eye-tracking data and machine learning. We collect eye-tracking data from 26 students responding to clinical MCQs. Analysis is performed by providing 119 eye-tracking features as input for a machine-learning model aiming to classify correct and incorrect responses. The predictive power of various combinations of features within the model is evaluated to understand how different feature interactions contribute to the predictions. The emerging eye-movement patterns indicate that incorrect responses are associated with working from the options to the stem. By contrast, correct responses are associated with working from the stem to the options, spending more time on reading the problem carefully, and a more decisive selection of a response option. The results suggest that the behaviours associated with correct responses are aligned with the real-world model used for score interpretation, while those associated with incorrect responses are not. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to perform data-driven, machine-learning experiments with eye-tracking data for the purpose of evaluating score interpretation validity.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania seek candidates for an Assistant Professor position in the non-tenure academic clinician track. Expertise is required in the specific area of biochemical genetics.

Introduction: This study investigated the construct validity of commonly used change of direction and agility tests in elite soccer players through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Change of direction tasks involve preplanned movement patterns, whereas agility tasks require reactive responses to external stimuli, indicating greater perceptual-cognitive demand and a more complex integration of motor and decision-making processes. Despite this conceptual distinction, both constructs are frequently assessed using similar field-based tests, raising questions about their discriminant and construct validity. Methods: Sixty-six high-performance soccer players completed a comprehensive testing battery consisting of four change of direction tests, four agility tests, and three linear sprint tests (5, 10, and 15 m). All tests were administered under standardized conditions. Data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis to identify underlying latent structures, followed by confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate model fit and construct coherence. Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified four factors: Speed, change of direction, T-test, and agility. Speed and change of direction tests demonstrated strong and distinct factor loadings, supporting their validity as independent physical performance constructs. In contrast, agility tests did not consistently load onto a single factor, with only the Y-test demonstrating a meaningful loading. Confirmatory factor analysis supported these findings, indicating good model fit for speed and change of direction constructs, but poor fit for agility. Discussion: These findings suggest that commonly used agility tests may not adequately capture agility as a unified construct. The results highlight the need for more ecologically valid and cognitively demanding assessments that better reflect perception-action coupling. From an applied perspective, these limitations may affect test selection and neuromuscular monitoring strategies within soccer injury risk management frameworks. Overall, this study reinforces the importance of construct validation in performance testing and calls for a critical reassessment of current agility assessment tools in elite soccer.