Objectives: Goal intentions are the key proximal determinant of behavior in a number of key models applied to predicting health behavior. However, relatively little previous research has examined how characteristics of goals moderate the intention-health behavior relations. The present research examined the effects of goal priority and goal conflict as moderators of the intention-health behavior relationship. Methods: The main outcome measures were selfreported performance of physical activity (Studies 1, 2 and 3) and other health behaviors (Study 4), and objectively measured physical activity (Study 3). Studies 1 and 4 used prospective correlational designs to predict later behavior from earlier cognitions. Studies 2 and 3 were experimental studies manipulating goal priority and goal conflict. Studies 1 and 2 used between-subjects designs while Studies 3 and 4 used within-subjects designs. Results:Goal priority significantly moderated the intention-health behavior relationship for physical activity (Study 1) and a range of protective and risk health behaviors (Study 4). Manipulations of goal priority significantly increased the intention-physical activity relationship when selfreported (Study 2) and objectively-measured (Study 3). In contrast, inconsistent effects were observed for goal conflict as an intention-behavior moderator. Conclusions: When goal priority is high then intentions are strong predictors of health behaviors. Further studies testing manipulations of goal conflict and in particular goal priority in combination with goal intentions are required to confirm their value as a means to change health behavior.

This is a repository copy of Non-traumatic dental presentations at accident and emergency departments in the UK: a systematic review.

Written and audio feedback methods are valued by students and staff. It is proposed that these may be very easily applied to OSCEs running in other dental schools.

This is a repository copy of Setting defensible standards in small cohort OSCEs: Understanding better when borderline regression can 'work'.

IntroductionThere has been a long running debate about the validity of item-based checklist scoring of performance assessments like OSCEs. In recent years, the conception of a checklist has developed from its dichotomous inception into a more 'key-features' and/or chunked approach, where 'items' have the potential to become weighted differently, but the literature does not always reflect these broader conceptions. MethodsWe consider theoretical, design and (clinically trained) assessor issues related to differential item weighting in checklist scoring of OSCEs stations. Using empirical evidence, this work also compares candidate decisions and psychometric quality of different item-weighting approaches (i.e. a simple 'unweighted' scheme versus a differentially weighted one). ResultsThe impact of different weighting schemes affect approximately 30% of the key borderline group of candidates, and 3% of candidates overall. We also find that measures of overall assessment quality are a little better under the differentially weighted scoring system. Discussion and conclusionDifferentially weighted modern checklists can contribute to valid assessment outcomes, and bring a range of additional benefits to the assessment. Judgment about weighting of particular items should be considered a key design consideration during station development, and must align to clinical assessor expectations of the relative importance of sub-tasks.