Loyola University Maryland

About: Loyola University Maryland is a education organization based out in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Mental health. The organization has 1117 authors who have published 2733 publications receiving 89910 citations. The organization is also known as: Loyola Maryland & Loyola MD.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Abstract: Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

Improved microbial gene identification with GLIMMER

Abstract: The GLIMMER system for microbial gene identification finds approximately 97-98% of all genes in a genome when compared with published annotation. This paper reports on two new results: (i) significant technical improvements to GLIMMER that improve its accuracy still further, and (ii) a comprehensive evaluation that demonstrates that the accuracy of the system is likely to be higher than previously recognized. A significant proportion of the genes missed by the system appear to be hypothetical proteins whose existence is only supported by the predictions of other programs. When the analysis is restricted to genes that have significant homology to genes in other organisms, GLIMMER misses <1% of known genes.

The Gender and Ethnic Diversity of US Boards and Board Committees and Firm Financial Performance

Abstract: Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Question/Issue: We examine the business case for the inclusion of women and ethnic minority directors on the board. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between the number of women directors and the number of ethnic minority directors on the board and important board committees and financial performance measured as return on assets and Tobin’s Q. Research Findings/Insights: We do not find a significant relationship between the gender or ethnic diversity of the board, or important board committees, and financial performance for a sample of major US corporations. Our evidence also suggests that the gender and ethnic minority diversity of the board and firm financial performance appear to be endogenous. Theoretical/Academic Implications: Reasonable theoretical arguments drawn from resource dependence theory, human capital theory, agency theory, and social psychology suggest that gender and ethnic diversity may have either a positive, negative, or neutral effect on the financial performance of the firm. Our statistical analysis supports the theoretical position of no effect, either positive or negative. Our results are consistent with a contingency explanation because the effect of the gender and ethnic diversity of the board may be different under different circumstances at different times. Over several companies and time periods, the results could offset to produce no effect. Practitioner/Policy Implications: The results of our analysis do not support the business case for inclusion of women and ethnic minorities on corporate boards. However, we find no evidence of any negative effect either. Our evidence implies that decisions concerning the appointment of women and ethnic minorities to corporate boards should be based on criteria other than future financial performance.

National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education

Abstract: Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is a critical element of care for all people with diabetes and is necessary in order to improve patient outcomes. The National Standards for DSME are designed to define quality diabetes self-management education and to assist diabetes educators in a variety of settings to provide evidence-based education. Because of the dynamic nature of health care and diabetes-related research, these Standards are reviewed and revised approximately every 5 years by key organizations and federal agencies within the diabetes education community. A Task Force was jointly convened by the American Association of Diabetes Educators and the American Diabetes Association in the summer of 2006. Additional organizations that were represented included the American Dietetic Association, the Veteran's Health Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Indian Health Service, and the American Pharmaceutical Association. Members of the Task Force included a person with diabetes; several health services researchers/behaviorists, registered nurses, and registered dietitians; and a pharmacist. The Task Force was charged with reviewing the current DSME standards for their appropriateness, relevance, and scientific basis. The Standards were then reviewed and revised based on the available evidence and expert consensus. The committee convened on 31 March 2006 and 9 September 2006, and the Standards were approved 25 March 2007. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the ongoing process of facilitating the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care. This process incorporates the needs, goals, and life experiences of the person with diabetes and is guided by evidence-based standards. The overall objectives of DSME are to support informed decision-making, self-care behaviors, problem-solving and active collaboration with the health care team and to improve clinical outcomes, health status, and quality of life. Before the review of the individual Standards, the Task Force identified overriding principles based on existing evidence that would …

Quality of life and diabetes

Abstract: Quality of life is an important health outcome in its own right, representing the ultimate goal of all health interventions. This paper reviews the published, English-language literature on self-perceived quality of life among adults with diabetes. Quality of life is measured as physical and social functioning, and perceived physical and mental well-being. People with diabetes have a worse quality of life than people with no chronic illness, but a better quality of life than people with most other serious chronic diseases. Duration and type of diabetes are not consistently associated with quality of life. Intensive treatment does not impair quality of life, and having better glycemic control is associated with better quality of life. Complications of diabetes are the most important disease-specific determinant of quality of life. Numerous demographic and psychosocial factors influence quality of life and should be controlled when comparing subgroups. Studies of clinical and educational interventions suggest that improving patients' health status and perceived ability to control their disease results in improved quality of life. Methodologically, it is important to use multidimensional assessments of quality of life, and to include both generic and disease-specific measures. Quality of life measures should be used to guide and evaluate treatment interventions.