Danish association football coaches’ perception of performance analysis

Comparison of open-ended and close-ended questions to determine signs and symptoms of eye problems among children

When policymakers design programs and policies, they often want to understand why individuals engage in particular behaviors. Collecting survey data about respondents’ reasons for their behavior presents important challenges, and there is little methodological research on this topic. We conducted an experiment to investigate the best practices for asking questions about respondents’ reasons for their behavior. We embedded a split ballot experiment in a face-to-face survey of 608 entrepreneurs in Ethiopia. Respondents were asked questions about why they did not engage in three business practices (advertising, sharing product storage, and switching suppliers). When asked these questions, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: close-ended questions, open-ended questions with interviewer probing, and open-ended questions without probing. Respondents endorsed more responses when asked close-ended (versus open-ended) questions. Close-ended responses produced higher rates of socially undesirable responses and fewer “other” responses. Notably, probing had no effect on the number or types of responses given. Our results suggest some best practices for asking respondents questions about reasons for their behavior.

The aim of this study was to investigate the applied performance analysis (PA) practices within women's football. An online survey was developed to assess PA practices (team, individual and opposition match analysis, training analysis, coach behaviour analysis, best practice analysis, talent identification and recruitment, and game insights), use of technology, and considerations for PA practices within women's football. Thirty-nine participants (female n = 13; male n = 26) responsible for delivering PA within women's football completed the online survey between January and August 2023. Participants worked across different competitive levels of women's football (international n = 11; senior domestic top tier n = 12; senior domestic second tier n = 7, senior domestic third tier and below n = 9; youth (<U23) domestic n = 10), including seven participants who worked across multiple levels of competition. Participants predominantly conducted team (100%), individual (79%) and opposition (84%) match analysis, and training analysis (74%). Data collection and analysis, feedback mechanisms, and application of insights gained from PA practices typically varied across competitive standards. A wide variety of software were reported for data collection (e.g. HUDL, Veo), storing and managing data and/or video (e.g. HUDL, Veo), conducting statistical analysis (e.g. Microsoft Excel, R), and providing feedback (e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint, HUDL) across competitive standards. Thirty-one respondents identified specific considerations or challenges faced when implementing PA (e.g. limited resources (42%), data availability (19%), facilities (19%)). The findings of this survey can be used to inform and develop applied PA practices in women's football, education, and development opportunities for current and aspiring performance analysts.

To illustrate how sequence analysis may be applied to the medical interview to: 1. explore how physicians without formal training in communication skills elicit and respond to patient cues and expression of expectations and opinions; and 2. test the hypothesis that physicians' closed ended questions determine the use of subsequent closed ended questions. 238 consultations in primary care, coded with the Verona Medical Interview Classification System, were analysed. Lag 1 analysis was applied to study which physician behaviour precedes and follows patient cues. Pattern recognition analysis for five lag sequences was performed to test the occurrence of predefined specific code chains, where a closed and an open ended question were followed either by two closed-ended questions or by two patient facilitating interventions Patients' cue offers were most likely after facilitative interventions, but not after open-ended questions; physicians were most likely to respond to these expressions with facilitation. Physicians' tendency to use closed ended questions increased after previous closed questions and decreased after an open-ended question. Lag sequential analysis and pattern recognition analysis are useful methods to study exploratory and theory driven hypotheses and allow an initial approach to validate the supposed appropriateness of specific physician interventions.

AimsTo set up an online peer-led medical education programme for core psychiatry trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic.To determine trainees’ views regarding the role of peer-led education in psychiatry.MethodA peer-led education programme was set up for psychiatry trainees in their third year of core training, held over an online video-conferencing platform. The weekly sessions were organised and led by trainees. Each week a trainee either presented a journal article or a particular psychiatric topic, with a group discussion afterwards.An online survey was sent to psychiatry trainees that had participated in the programme to determine their views. Close-ended questions were asked as well as open-ended questions for more qualitative responses.ResultThere were 9 peer-led sessions in total, with 11 trainees (out of 18 invited) attending at least one session, and an average of 5 trainees at each session.Five core trainee psychiatrists responded to the survey following the sessions. All of the respondents found the sessions either “very” or “fairly” useful. 80% stated that there should be more peer teaching opportunities as part of normal psychiatry training. All respondents found engaging with online teaching either “easy” or “OK”.Open-ended questions showed that respondents found the sessions were useful for: 1) connecting with peers during a difficult time 2) free discussion due to being around peers 3) wide interest and variety of topics. Improvements that could have been made were: 1) more sessions 2) advance knowledge of journal articles being presented.ConclusionPeer-led sessions are a useful form of medical education for core psychiatry trainees. During the restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic they are a way to connect with colleagues during an isolating time. They are easy to organise and access; and can take pressure off medical institutions, whilst having the advantages of allowing trainees to feel they can discuss topics in a more open manner and can follow their own interests.

Background: Autistic individuals face challenges in the workplace, particularly related to social communication. Diagnostic disclosure may mitigate these challenges, but it also exposes individuals to potential discrimination. This study aimed to share the diagnostic disclosure experiences of autistic adults in the workplace to help employers better understand the process, and help other autistic individuals make an informed decision about disclosure. Methods: The participants in this study were 238 clinically diagnosed, U.K.-based autistic adults with employment experience. Participants completed an online survey, comprising both open-ended and closed-ended questions, that asked about their experiences of disclosure in the workplace. Specifically, questions focused on when in the employment process participants disclosed, to whom the disclosure was made, what factors were involved in the decision to disclose, and what the impacts were of this decision. Results: Our findings suggest that when deciding to disclose, the participants were most concerned about how this might affect the attitudes of others in the workplace. Participants most often only disclosed selectively, while over a third disclosed to everyone. Many participants chose to disclose when completing the application materials or after starting the job, but rarely in the interview process. Many also disclosed after encountering issues at work (i.e., retrospective disclosure ). Just over a third of participants rated the impact of disclosing to supervisors and coworkers positively. Subsequent adjustments made were even less positively endorsed. Conclusions: Autistic individuals must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the costs. This study highlights the need for organizations, rather than autistic individuals, to take more responsibility for facilitating disclosure and improving outcomes to it. Specific recommendations include the creation of clear pathways for disclosure in workplaces, and an ongoing commitment to organization-wide autism training to reduce stigma and discrimination for autistic employees. Lay summary Why was this study done? Autistic individuals face challenges in the workplace. Telling someone that you have an autism diagnosis (disclosure) might be one way of addressing these challenges (e.g., by increasing the understanding of others). However, the literature on disclosure shows mixed outcomes and rarely gives voice to autistic people. What was the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study was to explore the disclosure experiences of autistic job seekers and employees and gain insight into their decision-making. What did the researchers do? We conducted an online survey with 238 clinically diagnosed autistic adults with employment experience. Our participants answered some questions about their personal information (e.g., age) and their past work experience before completing survey questions about disclosure. We read through everyone's answers to open-ended questions and put the answers into groups, such as “Reasons to disclose” and “Reasons not to disclose.” What were the results of the study? When deciding whether or not to disclose, our participants were most concerned about what other people they worked with would think. Most of our participants only told some people at work about their diagnosis, and many only disclosed after issues arose in the workplace. Over a third, however, disclosed to everyone. Participants said they were most likely to disclose on the application materials or after starting a job, not during a job interview. Just over one-third said that telling their supervisors or coworkers they were autistic had a positive impact, and that the changes made by their supervisors afterward were positive. Over a third said the changes made by their coworkers were neither positive nor negative. What do these findings add to what was already known? This is the first large-scale U.K.-based study on the disclosure experiences of autistic adults in the workplace. Our findings suggest that autistic people focus most on what other people will think and how others will treat them if they disclose. We found that disclosure during interviews is unlikely—contrary to what previous studies focused on—and that we need to conduct research looking at disclosure in more likely scenarios. What are potential weaknesses in the study? Most of our participants were white and female, but in the wider autistic population that isn't the case. We had many more participants who had told people at work about their autism diagnosis than those who had not. We also could not ask any follow-up questions about our participants' experiences because the survey was online. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future? Knowing more about the experiences of autistic people can help individuals to make an informed choice about disclosing their diagnosis. This study highlights that we need to involve nonautistic employers, colleagues, and organization leaders in the disclosure process to improve autism knowledge and acceptance, and hopefully improve outcomes for autistic people.

Identifying the circumstances of transmission of an emerging infectious disease rapidly is central for mitigation efforts. Here, we explore how large language models (LLMs) can automatically extract such circumstances from free-text descriptions in online surveys, in the context of Covid-19. In a nationwide study conducted online in France, we enrolled 545,958 adults with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection and inquired about the circumstances of transmission in both closed-ended and open-ended questions. First, we trained a classification model based on a pretrained LLM to predict one of seven predefined infection contexts (Work, Family, Friends, Sports, Cultural, Religious, Other) from the free text in answers to open-ended questions. We achieved an unbalanced accuracy of 75%, which increased to 91% when eliminating the 43% highest entropy responses. Second, we used topic modeling to define clusters of transmission circumstances agnostically. This led to 23 clusters, which agreed with the seven predefined infection contexts, but also provided finer details on previously undefined circumstances of transmission. Our study suggests that LLM-based analysis of free text may alleviate the need for closed-ended questions in epidemiological surveys and enable insights into previously unsuspected circumstances of transmission. This approach is poised to accelerate and enrich the acquisition of epidemiological insights in future pandemics.

The increase in older people with long-term care needs and the shortfall in the formal elderly healthcare workforce are questioning the healthcare system sustainability in Italy. Migrants have been employed for many years in the informal care sector as live-in carers often experience unfair working conditions. Appropriate training can help migrants and refugees enter the formal care sector, improve their quality of life, and bring new workforce into the hospital wards and nursing homes. This study is aimed at understanding practices and difficulties of educational and elderly healthcare organisations in training and employing migrants and refugees in Italy, and the latter’s educational needs. An online survey, carried out in Spring 2021, reached 17 care facilities managers, 13 educational organisations and five migrants/refugees, who answered three different questionnaires with close and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analysed statistically and qualitative data by means of the content analysis. Findings showed the need for training specifically designed for migrants and refugees, focusing on language, healthcare terminology and culture of the host country, and on care provider organisations working culture, mission, and vision. Suggestions for boosting migrant and refugees’ elderly care education are given to policy makers, elderly care facilities and training organisations.

This study explored the views of 241 patients with schizophrenia about their own disorder. Patients' knowledge of their diagnosis, confidence that they will be well again, and perception of limitations in their own life as a result of the disorder were explored in relation to patients' opinions about the social consequences of schizophrenia. Study results were presented to participants, and suggestions were collected regarding how these study results should be used. Seventy-two respondents (30%) reported that a psychiatrist told them that they have schizophrenia. Respondents who were confident that they would be well again had a lower duration of contact with psychiatric services and a less pronounced perception of affective and social difficulties related to schizophrenia. Respondents who did not feel limited in their life by the disorder reported less social distance and more optimism about the usefulness of treatments. Participatory studies may provide ideas for a more constructive interaction between patients and professionals.

BackgroundWritten assessments fall into two classes: constructed-response or open-ended questions, such as the essay and a number of variants of the short-answer question, and selected-response or closed-ended questions; typically in the form of multiple-choice. It is widely believed that constructed response written questions test higher order cognitive processes in a manner that multiple-choice questions cannot, and consequently have higher validity.DiscussionAn extensive review of the literature suggests that in summative assessment neither premise is evidence-based. Well-structured open-ended and multiple-choice questions appear equivalent in their ability to assess higher cognitive functions, and performance in multiple-choice assessments may correlate more highly than the open-ended format with competence demonstrated in clinical practice following graduation. Studies of construct validity suggest that both formats measure essentially the same dimension, at least in mathematics, the physical sciences, biology and medicine. The persistence of the open-ended format in summative assessment may be due to the intuitive appeal of the belief that synthesising an answer to an open-ended question must be both more cognitively taxing and similar to actual experience than is selecting a correct response. I suggest that cognitive-constructivist learning theory would predict that a well-constructed context-rich multiple-choice item represents a complex problem-solving exercise which activates a sequence of cognitive processes which closely parallel those required in clinical practice, hence explaining the high validity of the multiple-choice format.SummaryThe evidence does not support the proposition that the open-ended assessment format is superior to the multiple-choice format, at least in exit-level summative assessment, in terms of either its ability to test higher-order cognitive functioning or its validity. This is explicable using a theory of mental models, which might predict that the multiple-choice format will have higher validity, a statement for which some empiric support exists. Given the superior reliability and cost-effectiveness of the multiple-choice format consideration should be given to phasing out open-ended format questions in summative assessment. Whether the same applies to non-exit-level assessment and formative assessment is a question which remains to be answered; particularly in terms of the educational effect of testing, an area which deserves intensive study.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-014-0249-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing coaches as reflective practitioners is a key tenet of coach education frameworks, with coach developers playing a significant role in facilitating reflection. Consequently, the aim of this research was to explore the exercises, mechanisms, and challenges coach developers utilise and face when facilitating reflective practice within formal coach education. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six active coach developers within an Irish sport governing body (SGB), with transcripts subject to a reflexive thematic analysis process. Findings indicated that while coach developers’ understanding and conceptualisation of reflective practice varied, they each attempted to facilitate reflection through similar pedagogical practices. Specifically, coach developers’ roles included adapting sessions to utilise learning opportunities, addressing the needs of coaches struggling with reflective practice mechanisms, and active engagement through prompts and feedback. While the relationship between the coach developer and coach was deemed significant in facilitating reflection, time constraints were highlighted as a major challenge when seeking to enable meaningful reflection. Furthermore, learners’ motivations for, and attitudes towards, coach education influenced their engagement in reflective discussions. This research adds to the growing body of literature on coach developers by specifically highlighting the practical demands they face in facilitating reflective practice.

Introduction: Public engagement is increasingly promoted in the scientific community. Although there are studies about researchers’ perspectives on public engagement, these are predominantly from Global North settings and there is little data from the context of Southeast Asia. The Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) is a clinical and public health research programme with sites in Vietnam, Nepal and Indonesia. There is a dedicated public engagement team, and it is recognised as an important part of the research process. Methods: Through this study we explored the views and needs of local researchers with regards to practicing public engagement. We obtained opinions of 70 researchers through an online survey with both open-ended and closed-ended questions. Results: Most researchers perceived public engagement as improving public science literacy, rather than supporting public participation in science and research. While the participants largely see public engagement as a necessary practice, they experienced four main barriers to taking part in public engagement: time, lack of capacity, lack of support and personal perceptions. Most participants indicated they had somewhat to low confidence to communicate about science to the public. Experience, skill and knowledge, and personal preference emerged as factors that influence their perceived confidence for science communication. In our analysis, experience appeared to be the main factor contributing to researchers' high confidence. Recommendations: We recommended to support researchers by not only providing them with training for skills and knowledge, but also with opportunities to conduct public engagement, and a range of methods to suit their personal styles of communicating. It is also evident that more support is needed to build an enabling institutional environment that gives researchers professional recognition for their engagement work. This study, while modest in its scope, has informed our approach to supporting researcher-led engagement, and may guide other institutes wishing to improve this.

Focusing on an online survey in psychological research, we evaluated the usability of the device chosen to complete the survey and examined underlying reasons through a usability enquiry method. The participants were 149 undergraduate students who completed a questionnaire for assessing achievement emotions and motivation, with open-ended and closed-ended questions. They also evaluated the usability of the device chosen to complete the survey and reported underlying reasons. We analyzed the data with Generalized Linear Mixed Models. The devices chosen to complete the survey were perceived as highly usable, even if usability was lower for smartphones compared to other devices such as personal computers, notebooks, and tablets. The most relevant reasons regarded characteristics of the tools, followed by those of the tasks and then of users and environments. The findings are discussed taking into account their theoretical and applied relevance for monitoring and improving online psychological assessment.

Setting: An online survey was hosted within Smart Survey, available for 6 weeks in early 2019, which queried: GPs career to date, interaction with rare disease patients, challenges faced, the exchange of information with patients, priorities for the future, support for such patients and finally training. The survey contained open-ended and closed-ended questions and both qualitative (narrative) and quantitative analyses were carried out.

Introduction: Public engagement is increasingly promoted in the scientific community. Although there are studies about researchers' perspectives on public engagement, these are predominantly from Global North settings and there is little data from the context of Southeast Asia. The Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) is a clinical and public health research programme with sites in Vietnam, Nepal and Indonesia. There is a dedicated public engagement team, and it is recognised as an important part of the research process. Methods: Through this study we explored the views and needs of local researchers with regards to practicing public engagement. We obtained opinions of 70 researchers through an online survey with both open-ended and closed-ended questions. Results: Most researchers perceived public engagement as improving public science literacy, rather than supporting public participation in science and research. While the participants largely see public engagement as a necessary practice, they experienced four main barriers to taking part in public engagement: time, lack of capacity, lack of support and personal perceptions. Most participants indicated they had somewhat to low confidence to communicate about science to the public. Experience, skill and knowledge, and personal preference emerged as factors that influence their perceived confidence for science communication. In our analysis, experience appeared to be the main factor contributing to researchers' high confidence. Recommendations: We recommended to support researchers by not only providing them with training for skills and knowledge, but also with opportunities to conduct public engagement, and a range of methods to suit their personal styles of communicating. It is also evident that more support is needed to build an enabling institutional environment that gives researchers professional recognition for their engagement work. This study, while modest in its scope, has informed our approach to supporting researcher-led engagement, and may guide other institutes wishing to improve this.