Changes in cross-sectional area are currently used to assess tumour response to treatment. The aims of this study were to validate a helical CT technique for volume determination using a series of phantoms and to compare tumour responses indicated by one-, two- and three-dimensional measures of tumour size change in patients treated for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. All studies were performed on an IGE HiSpeed Advantage helical CT scanner with an Advantage Windows workstation. Phantom volumes were calculated using volume reconstruction software and compared with reference volumes determined by water displacement. 20 lymph node masses were studied on serial CT scans in 16 patients treated with chemotherapy for germ cell cancer or lymphoma. For each lesion the maximum diameter, maximum cross-sectional area and volume were determined before and after treatment. Tumour response was assessed using the standard World Health Organisation criteria (i.e. changes in cross-sectional area) and the newly proposed unidimensional response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST). The CT volume measurement error was 1.0-5.1% for regularly shaped phantoms larger than 35 cm3. In the assessment of treatment response there was 90% agreement between one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements and 100% agreement between 2D and three-dimensional (3D) measurements. CT volume measurements are accurate and reproducible, particularly for larger structures. Assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measures had limited influence on the classification of treatment response. However, the impact of CT assessment of tumour response using 1D, 2D and 3D measurements on clinical decisions and patient outcome remains to be determined.
Three hundred twenty-eight intercollegiate coaches (men = 240, women = 88; Division I = 156, Division III = 172) responded to a questionnaire measuring commitment to their university and coaching occupation, intention to leave the organization and occupation, their team standings, and perceptions of their performance. The variables of division, gender, and marital/lifestyle status affected neither organizational nor occupational commitments. Organizational commitments of affective, normative, continuance: high sacrifice, and continuance: low alternatives correlated significantly with intention to leave the organization and cumulatively explained 23.7% of the variance. Affective, normative, and continuance: low alternatives forms of commitment to occupation correlated significantly with intention to leave the occupation and cumulatively explained 23.1% of the variance. The bases of organizational commitment cumulatively explained 5.6% and 4.9% of the variance in subjective and objective performances, respectively. Results suggest that athletic departments should focus on enhancing their coaches’ commitment to the organization in order to retain them.
Researchers in a number of disciplines have examined the utility of single-item measures for both affective and cognitive constructs. While these authors have indicated that, under certain circumstances, the use of single-item measures is appropriate, there remains concern regarding the reliability and validity of singleitem measures. This study attempts to address these concerns by comparing the reliability and validity of single-item and full-scale measures for three dimensions of organizational justice. There are an increasing number of studies in organizational behavior, as well as sport management, that have explored the importance of justice and its influence on various attitudes and behaviors. However, to date there have been no attempts to develop single-item measures for each of the dimensions of organizational justice. The development of single-item measures for organizational justice could provide researchers with practical and psychometric advantages compared with full-scale measures. Two separate methods were used to test the reliability of single-item measures while concurrent validity was measured with a global measure of job satisfaction. Single-item measures demonstrated comparable concurrent validity, and, with one exception, the reliability estimates were all above .70.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.