Information Literacy for Fashion Students: Translating Visual and Tactile Cues into Searchable Key Terms

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
Olivia Warschaw
Keyword(s):  
Information Literacy ◽  
Tactile Cues ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Fashion Students

scholarly journals Plagiarism An Essay in Terminology

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
MP Satija ◽  
Daniel Martínez-Ávila
Keyword(s):  
Information Literacy ◽  
Codes Of Ethics ◽  
Similarity Score ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Source Attribution ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Detection Software ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Key Terms

The terminology on plagiarism is not hard and fast. It is fluid, a bit ambiguous, and still emerging. It may take some time to settle the terms more clearly, concretely and exhaustively. This paper aims to provide a terminological discussion of some important and current concepts related to plagiarism. It discusses key terms/concepts such as copyright, citation cartels, citing vs. quoting, compulsive thief, cryptomnesia, data fakery, ignorance of laws and codes of ethics, information literacy, lack of training, misattribution, fair use clause, paraphrasing, plagiarism, plagiarism detection software, publish or perish syndrome, PubPeer, retraction, retraction vs. correction, retraction watch, salami publication, similarity score, Society for Scientific Values, and source attribution. The explanation and definition of these terms/concepts can be useful for LIS scholars and professionals in their efforts to fight plagiarism. We expect this terminology can be referred in future discussions on the topic and also used to improve the communications between the actors involved.

Job Validation Studies and Physical Agility Testing: Is the Vendor Telling You What They Think You Want or Are You Telling Them What You Need?

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
E. Randolph Soo Hoo ◽  
Stephen L. Demeter
Keyword(s):  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
Job Analysis ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Systematic Method ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Physical Abilities ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Key Terms

Abstract Referring agents may ask independent medical evaluators if the examinee can return to work in either a normal or a restricted capacity; similarly, employers may ask external parties to conduct this type of assessment before a hire or after an injury. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are used to measure agility and strength, but they have limitations and use technical jargon or concepts that can be confusing. This article clarifies key terms and concepts related to FCEs. The basic approach to a job analysis is to collect information about the job using a variety of methods, analyze the data, and summarize the data to determine specific factors required for the job. No single, optimal job analysis or validation method is applicable to every work situation or company, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical standards for each type of validity study. FCEs are a systematic method of measuring an individual's ability to perform various activities, and results are matched to descriptions of specific work-related tasks. Results of physical abilities/agilities tests are reported as “matching” or “not matching” job demands or “pass” or “fail” meeting job criteria. Individuals who fail an employment physical agility test often challenge the results on the basis that the test was poorly conducted, that the test protocol was not reflective of the job, or that levels for successful completion were inappropriate.

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Living ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Assessments ◽  
Physician Judgment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

Diagnostik von ICT Literacy: Messen Multiple-Choice-Aufgaben und simulationsbasierte Aufgaben vergleichbare Konstrukte?

Diagnostica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-157
Author(s):  
Martin Senkbeil ◽  
Jan Marten Ihme
Keyword(s):  
Information Literacy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Panel Study ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Ict Literacy ◽  
Computer And Information Literacy ◽  
Literacy Test

Zusammenfassung. ICT Literacy legt eine performanzbasierte Erfassung mit simulierten und interaktiven Testaufgaben nahe. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht, ob mit Multiple-Choice (MC)-Aufgaben ein vergleichbares Konstrukt wie mit Simulationsaufgaben erfasst wird. Hierfür wurden die Testergebnisse zweier Instrumente aus aktuellen Large-Scale-Studien gegenübergestellt, die an N = 2 075 Jugendlichen erhoben wurden: der auf MC-Aufgaben basierende ICT Literacy-Test für Klasse 9 des Nationalen Bildungspanels (National Educational Panel Study, NEPS) und der simulationsbasierte Kompetenztest der internationalen Schulleistungsstudie ICILS 2013 (International Computer and Information Literacy Study). Die Analysen unterstützen die Gültigkeit der Konstruktinterpretation des MC-basierten Tests in NEPS. Im Sinne der konvergenten Evidenz korrelieren die MC-Aufgaben substanziell mit den computer- und simulationsbasierten Aufgaben in ICILS 2013 (.68 ≤  r ≤ .90). Weiterhin ergeben sich positive und für beide Tests vergleichbar hohe Korrelationen mit ICT-bezogenen Schülermerkmalen (z. B. Selbstwirksamkeit). Weiterführende Analysen zum Zusammenhang mit allgemeinen kognitiven Fähigkeiten zeigen zudem, dass ICT Literacy und kognitive Grundfähigkeiten distinkte Faktoren repräsentieren.

Exploring Methods in Information Literacy Research

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lipu ◽  
Kirsty Williamson ◽  
Annemaree Lloyd
Keyword(s):  
Information Literacy ◽  
Literacy Research
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document