Search results

Vormingsmomenten

De discussie rondom persoonsvorming in het basisonderwijs heeft zich de afgelopen jaren vooral toegespitst op de vraag naar de meetbaarheid en daarmee de verantwoording van deze vorming. Omdat persoonsvorming een proces is dat zich ook voordoet zonder dat leerkrachten er planmatig mee bezig zijn en zonder dat het effect gemeten wordt, is het in het kader van deze verantwoording noodzakelijk om meer te begrijpen over de momenten waarop persoonsvorming zich voordoet. In dit onderzoek zijn data van een groep studenten aan de pabo verzameld en geanalyseerd om antwoord te kunnen geven op de vraag wat de basale kenmerken van deze vormingsmomenten zijn. De participanten hebben tijdens het lesgeven op bureaubladen bijgehouden op welke momenten ze ervoeren persoonsvormend te handelen in termen van de vorming van persoonlijkheid, identiteit of karakter (Elshout & Enthoven, 2021). Deze bureaubladen hebben data opgeleverd over de duur van deze momenten, de betrokkenen en de vakgebieden waarop persoonsvorming zich voordeed. Ook hebben de studenten journals bijgehouden over het ontstaan van deze momenten. Leraren in opleiding blijken tijdens een schooldag uiteenlopende momenten van persoonsvorming te ervaren. Deze momenten van persoonsvorming zijn verweven met allerlei vakinhouden maar vooral ook met vrije ruimte van leerlingen. Op basis van deze resultaten kan worden geconcludeerd dat het voor het begrijpen van de plaats en functie van persoonsvorming in het curriculum van het basisonderwijs belangrijk is meer onderzoek te doen naar de manier waarop persoonsvorming plaatsvindt, welke doelen men in het onderwijs voor deze persoonsvorming stelt en op welke manier het onderwijs verantwoording kan afleggen voor deze rol in de persoonsvorming van leerlingen.

Competenties in Europees perspectief

Naar een alternatieve benadering van studiesucces

Development of a frailty index from the Dutch public health monitor 2016 and investigation of its psychometric properties: a cross-sectional study

Background: Frailty in older adults is an increasing challenge for individuals, health care organizations and public health, both globally and in The Netherlands. To focus on frailty prevention from a public health perspective, understanding of frailty status is needed. To enable measurement of frailty within a health survey that currently does not contain an established frailty instrument, we aimed to construct a frailty index (FI) and investigate its psychometric properties. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the Dutch Public Health Monitor (DPHM), including respondents aged ≥ 65 years (n = 233,498). Forty-two health deficits were selected based on literature, previously constructed FIs, face validity and standard criteria for FI construction. Deficits were first explored by calculating Cronbach’s alpha, point-polyserial correlations, and factor loadings. Thereafter, we used the Graded Response Model (GRM) to assess item difficulty, item discrimination, and category thresholds. Results: Cronbach’s alpha for the 42 items was 0.91. Thirty-seven deficits showed strong psychometric properties: they scored above the cutoff values for point-polyserial correlations (0.3) or factor loadings (0.4) and had moderate to very high discrimination parameters (≥ 0.65). These deficits were retained in the scale. Retaining the deficits with favorable measurement properties and removing the remaining deficits resulted in the FI-HM37. Conclusion: The FI-HM37 was developed, an FI with 37 deficits indicative of frailty, both statistically and conceptually. Our results indicate that health monitors can be used to measure frailty, even though they were not directly designed to do so. The GRM is a suitable approach for deficit selection, resulting in a psychometrically strong scale, that facilitates assessment of frailty levels using the DPHM.

Validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments

In this paper validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments are the central themes. A screening instrument can be called valid if it identifies performance that is important to society. A screening instrument is called compatible if these instruments can be used interchangeably. Validity The outcome of the content-analysis approach suggest that there is clearly not a perfect match between the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF, indicating that the SAM and KLD screening instruments taken the CSAF as the standard, cannot be called valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. However, as discussed earlier, assessing validity is not a binary phenomenon. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do. To make things more complicated, the validity of a measure also depends on the aggregation level under observation. It makes a big difference if validity is assessed at a high (i.e. Dimension) or low aggregation (i.e. Sustainability Item) level . At the highest level there is a perfect match with the CSAF, indicating that both screening instruments are valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. At the lowest level the situation is quite different. Here we see that overlap is relatively poor. Besides, the weight distributions of the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF are also largely dissimilar. When we break the validity discussion down to the Dimension level, we can see that overlap between the SAM and KLD instruments is also relatively poor, although the SAM instrument is slightly more attuned to the CSAF than the KLD instrument. This most notably applies to the Governance Dimension. The SAM instrument scores relatively poor on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that we analyzed the generic (i.e. non-industry specific) screening instrument. SAM typically addresses environmental issues in industry specific supplements. CompatibilityThe second question in this study concerns the compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments. Or more accurately phrased: the extent to which these rating schemes are compatible. If we would consider compatibility assessment of screening instruments as a binary phenomenon, then we should conclude that the SAM and KLD instruments are not compatible.However, just like validity, assessing the compatibility of screening instruments is not a binary phenomenon. The extent to which the rating schemes of the two SRAs are compatible relates to the aggregation level. At the highest aggregation ( or Dimension) level the screening instruments are perfectly compatible. Both instruments cover governance, social, environmental and economic issues. At the lowest (or Sustainability Item) level the situation is quite different. At this level compatibility of both instruments is poor. Overlap is poor and the weight distributions are hardly correlated. Obviously both instruments are reflect different interpretations of corporate sustainability performance. Compatibility is highest for the Social Dimension. For the Governance, Environment and Economic Dimension compatibility is very poor. The overall conclusion should therefore be that that compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments is (very) poor and that for this reason these instruments cannot

Meester de Baas

Binnen dit onderzoek is gekeken of het mogelijk is het creatieve denkproces van een hoogbegaafde leerling inzichtelijk te maken voor de leerkracht door middel van het spelen van een digitale game