The impetus for this paper is to bring to the foreground a discussion of the potential for a new model for mHealth skills training for clinicians. The use of mHealth in diagnosing and treating patients is a relatively recent phenomenon, and there is scant evidence of curricula changes to reflect the challenges of integrating mHealth skills into training programs. Too often educational institutions assume that clinicians will either acquire mHealth skills on the job or assume that as digital natives, the students have grown up along with technology and can easily facilitate the transition to professional practice with mobile technologies. However, mHealth is a major technological phenomenon that deserves significant educational reformation and consideration in medical curricula. The need for a new modelChange is rapid and ubiquitous in healthcare and nowhere is this more evident than in deployment of mHealth products and services. This technology-centric industry movement has been described as "a natural, inevitable and necessary evolution" (1) from the expected "point of care" occurring in the clinician's physical location. Medical professionals are increasingly connecting with patients via email, telephone, and webcam, and using these same tools to consult with each other electronically. Moreover, mHealth and related technologies extend the boundaries of healthcare beyond the walls of the physical facility allowing medical professionals to provide quality healthcare services in places that previously were unreachable. For example, doctors without borders located in Niger, Sudan and elsewhere report using the Internet to engage a network of almost 300 experts around the world for assistance with the toughest of clinical cases (2).A

No abstract

Thomson, Besner, and Smilek (2016) propose that performance decrements associated with sustained attention are not consistently the result of a decline in perceptual sensitivity. Thomson et al. (2016) present empirical evidence using a novel, nontraditional vigilance task to support their assumptions. However, in the present rebuttal, we argue that the authors have not only have misinterpreted previous research in sustained attention, but also have misapplied those interpretations to their study. Thomson et al. have also neglected key elements of the literature in their argument, including research on expectancy theory and individual differences on vigilance performance. Furthermore, Thomson and colleagues implement an experimental paradigm that is not appropriate for evaluating sensitivity and bias changes in vigilance tasks. Finally, their analyses do not capture the manner in which changes in response bias and sensitivity can manifest in signal detection theory. We discuss the theoretical and experimental issues contained in Thomson et al. (2016) and propose suggestions for future vigilance research in this area. (PsycINFO Database Record

Recently, experimental studies of vigilance have been deployed using online data collection methods. This data collection strategy is not new to the psychological sciences, but it is relatively new to basic research assessing vigilance performance, as studies in this area of research tend to collect data in the laboratory or in the field. The present study partially replicated the results of a newly developed online vigilance task (Thomson, Besner, & Smilek, 2016). A sample of 130 participants completed the semantic vigilance task created by Thomson et al. (2016) in a research laboratory setting. The present results replicated Thomson et al. (2016) when nonparametric and corrected signal detection measures were used. We suggest that some vigilance tasks typically performed in the laboratory could be administered online. However, we encourage researchers to consider the following factors prior to studying vigilance performance online: (a) the type of vigilance task, (b) the length of the vigilance task, and (c) the signal detection indices most appropriate for their research. It is quite possible that some analyses may yield significant results, whereas other signal detection measures may not (i.e., parametric indices vs. nonparametric indices vs. "corrected" indices) and this point is discussed further in our article. (PsycINFO Database Record

The need for cognition and motivation are related to performance in school and standardized tests. In this study, 422 students completed a battery of individual difference measures and reported their scores on the American College Testing (ACT) exam, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), high school grade point average (GPA), major GPA, and overall college GPA. Need for cognition was positively related to ACT and SAT scores, respectively, but not GPA. Achievement motivation was positively correlated with high school GPA, major GPA, overall college GPA, ACT score, and SAT score. The results showed that need for cognition may be related to standardized testing performance, whereas motivation, particularly achievement motivation, is related to performance in the classroom and in the major. Our results indicate that the need for cognition is distinct from the enjoyment of thinking and motivation toward challenge.