Search results

Abstract

This position paper critiques the widespread assumption that literature reviews should prioritize recent sources, often operationalized as a “5-year rule” in academic writing. While recency is valuable for capturing current developments, this practice may inadvertently exclude foundational theories and methodological principles that remain conceptually relevant. To address this issue, the paper introduces Citation Recency Bias, defined as the tendency to privilege newer sources based primarily on temporal proximity rather than functional relevance. Drawing on enduring contributions in research methodology and educational psychology, including measurement theory (Stevens, 1946), reliability estimation through Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (1951), statistical frameworks developed by Fisher (1925) and Cohen (1988), and foundational theories proposed by Bandura (1977) and Vygotsky (1978), the paper argues that many core elements of contemporary scholarship continue to rely on earlier works. Citation Recency Bias is therefore conceptualized as a methodological distortion that may weaken theoretical grounding and conceptual coherence when the publication date is treated as an indicator of scholarly value.

Abstract

This position paper formalizes the concept of the Categorical Ceiling Tax (CCT), an interpretive limitation observed in intervention studies that employ quantitative scoring rubrics to classify proficiency levels. The CCT describes a form of structural resistance that occurs when a population mean approaches, but does not cross, a predefined categorical threshold, even when measurable quantitative gains are documented. Using pre–post score data from a one-group design involving the total population of N = 494 Grade 7 students, this paper illustrates how categorical reporting obscured a documented positive mean shift (Δx̅ = +0.20), while the population classification remained at the “Instructional” level. This paper argues that categorical transitions, when interpreted independently, may misrepresent population-level progress in large samples. It further proposes that changes in the deficiency floor—defined as the proportion of learners classified at the Frustration level—be reported as a complementary interpretive indicator alongside categorical outcomes. These observations provide applied insights into the interpretation of outcomes generated through technology-supported assessment and reporting systems commonly used in contemporary educational settings.

Author Biography

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo, College of Business Administration, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Cavite, Philippines

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo is a student researcher specializing in educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, educational measurement and evaluation, psychometrics, and educational technology. He is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. As of 2026, he holds an honorary appointment as an International Editorial Board Member for SIAR Publications, contributing to peer review, editorial guidance, and interdisciplinary journal development. He also serves as an invited peer reviewer for international peer-reviewed journals in online and distance learning, educational technology, educational evaluation, information literacy, interdisciplinary undergraduate research, and health and science education, including journals indexed in Web of Science (ESCI), Scopus (Q1–Q3, SCImago), ERIC, and DOAJ, supporting rigorous and ethically grounded interdisciplinary scholarship.

Abstract

This study employed a Convergent Mixed-Methods Design to examine how mobile gaming influences students’ behaviour, study habits, physical well-being, and academic obligations within a senior high school educational context. The quantitative component involved 58 Grade 11 students from Section X in the Philippines who answered a 10-item Likert-scale survey assessing gaming habits, academic distractions, sleep problems, physical symptoms, and coping strategies. Data were analyzed using weighted means, frequency distributions, and Pearson’s correlations. The qualitative component consisted of semi-structured interviews with ten purposively selected participants. The thematic analysis revealed three major themes: (1) gaming for enjoyment and escape, (2) physical discomfort and sleep loss, and (3) difficulty managing academic responsibilities alongside failed attempts at self-regulation. Findings indicated that greater gaming involvement was associated with reduced focus, sleep deprivation, decreased motivation, and neglect of academic tasks. Quantitative results revealed a moderate negative relationship between mobile game addiction and academic performance (r = −.52, p < .001). Qualitative narratives further explained how sleep loss, cognitive fatigue, and reinforcement-driven habits contributed to academic disengagement despite students’ awareness of negative consequences. The study highlights the importance of digital literacy programs, structured guidance interventions, and school-based strategies that promote responsible gaming habits and academic self-regulation among learners.

Author Biography

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Mhel Cedric D. Bendo is a student researcher specializing in educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, educational measurement and evaluation, psychometrics, educational technology, and business and financial technology (FinTech). He is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. As of 2026, he is a member of the Editorial Board of SIAR Publications, an Editorial Board Member of the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Exploration (IJMRE), and an Editorial Board Member and Review and Technical Committee Member of the International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application (IJAMA), where he contributes to peer review, subject-area feedback, manuscript evaluation, and research assessment. He also serves as a Technical Editor for the Journal of Student-Run Clinics (JSRC), contributing to editorial review processes and the technical evaluation of submitted manuscripts. He is an invited peer reviewer for international peer-reviewed journals, including Cogent Education (Taylor & Francis), a peer-reviewed journal published by a leading global academic publisher, contributing to the evaluation of scholarly work in education and interdisciplinary research. His reviewing contributions cover education, psychology, artificial intelligence in education, educational technology, educational evaluation, interdisciplinary undergraduate research, health education, business, and entrepreneurship, including journals indexed in Web of Science (ESCI), Scopus (Q1–Q3), ERIC, and DOAJ.

This study examined the association between invitation message tone and student participation in digitally mediated learning environments. Using a field-based quasi-experimental design, 40 students in the Philippines were assigned through an alternating allocation procedure to receive either a formal, context-rich invitation or a brief informal message directing them to the same online task. Participation was measured at the individual level through link activation, task completion, and response timing using automated digital tracking. Results showed higher completion rates and faster response patterns in the formal message condition. Completion reached 100% in the formal condition compared to 50% in the informal condition (χ²(1, N = 40) = 13.33, p < .001, V = .58). These findings show that message structure is associated with how learners respond to academic requests in digitally mediated environments. While limited by a small sample size and context-specific design, the study provides applied evidence consistent with principles of transactional distance and teaching presence. The findings suggest that low-effort improvements in communication design may support participation in asynchronous open and distance learning systems.

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), an initiative supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, was established to support the career development of individuals from diverse backgrounds in biomedical research, with a focus on mentorship and professional development. In its first phase (2014-2019), the NRMN built a network of mentors and mentees from a variety of disciplines, with over 10,000 individuals including more than 7,000 mentors and mentees engaged in research mentorship training or grantsmanship coaching. Phase II (launched in 2019) built on this foundation and focused on investigating longer-term outcomes and studying mentorship interventions. This phase reimagined the NRMN as a consortium consisting of one coordination center (the NRMN Coordination Center), a resource center (the NRMN Resource Center) and 11 independent research studies that focused on mentorship, career development, and professional networking. These studies shared a common goal of exploring how specific mentorship practices influence career outcomes for diverse groups in biomedical research.

The multi-study common measures dataset of NRMN contains data collected using common measures across 10 of the 11 independent research studies conducted under NRMN Phase II (2019-2024). Each study implemented mentorship and career development interventions specific to individuals from diverse backgrounds, career stages, and fields in biomedical research. While study designs and populations varied, all agreed to collect data using a set of community-identified common measures. The common measures dataset was compiled using codebooks and documentation provided by study teams. Where full survey instruments were unavailable, variables were mapped from available materials and cross-checked for consistency. This dataset supports research on mentorship, professional development, and career outcomes in biomedical research.

Organizations that fund cancer research need to decide which studies to fund. Value of information (VOI) is a way to help rank research studies. VOI estimates the value of research by looking at the impacts on health and on healthcare that could result from the research.

SWOG (formerly the Southwest Oncology Group) is a network of cancer researchers funded by the National Cancer Institute. SWOG leaders review and score new study proposals based on the scientific value of the studies and their potential impact. Based on a study's score, SWOG's leadership committee decides whether to send the study to the National Cancer Institute for funding review.

In this study, the research team wanted to learn if giving VOI data to the committee affected its scoring of proposals. The team also wanted to see if providing VOI data was helpful in deciding which studies to fund. The study had two parts. The research team created a process to quickly estimate VOI. Then, the team tested the process on nine study proposals that the SWOG committee reviewed.

The A*CENSUS II All Archivists Survey is a national survey of individual archivists and memory workers in the U.S. that was administered in 2021 and builds on the foundation of the first Archival Census and Education Needs Survey in the United States (A*CENSUS ICPSR 4265), which collected data for the archives profession in 2004 .

Through the All Archivists Survey, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) endeavored to reach all archivists, memory workers, and every person in the U.S. who works with archival materials in any capacity, regardless of employment status or title in order to ask about their experiences in and perspectives on key issues in the archives field.

Community-engaged research is an umbrella term for forms of research that have community and stakeholder engagement as a core principle, for example, patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), participatory action research, and community-based participatory research. However, the implementation and category of community engagement can vary across a spectrum from minimal engagement to fully collaborative engagement. A major methodological gap is the assessment of stakeholder engagement from a stakeholder perspective. Evaluation of the impact of stakeholder engagement on research development, implementation, and outcomes requires the development and validation of tools that assess engagement. This study's objective was to develop and validate comprehensive and condensed versions of a survey instrument that will be completed by stakeholders and used to assess engagement in research studies from a stakeholder perspective.

Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) face significant physical and mental health disparities. Ethical challenges may discourage their inclusion in research and hinder scientific advancements to reduce these health disparities. Five core groups are adults with ID, individuals who provide informal support to adults with ID, individuals who provide services to adults with ID, ID researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Little is known about these stakeholders' opinions on how to ethically include adults with ID in research. Increasing this knowledge base, especially by inviting input from groups whose opinions are rarely examined, is critical to helping the scientific community devise and deploy sensitive and responsive practices and encouraging research to reduce pressing disparities.

The research's long-term goal is to encourage science that is sensitive to the ethical and social dimensions of research with adults with ID and more inclusive of this population. The research's aim was to qualitatively study the views of adults with ID, persons who provide informal support to adults with ID, and persons who provide services to adults with ID on the participation of adults with ID in self-report research. The focus on self-report research that aims to study the thoughts and experiences of adults with intellectual disability reflects the field's increased emphasis on direct representation in such research and the less clear risks this research may bear.

This collection includes 10 focus group transcripts conducted with participants in Geisinger Health System's MyCode Community Health Initiative, an unselected biobank. Geisinger is a large, integrated health system in central and northeast Pennsylvania. Focus groups were conducted at clinics throughout the system's catchment area. Focus group participants were asked to discuss their views of the appropriateness of using their clinical and genomic data to study several phenotypes, including social and behavioral phenotypes.

A web survey of the principal investigators of social science awards made by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between 1985 and 2001. This was conducted by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) from May 2009 to August 2009.

The survey explored both the barriers and motivations individuals face when thinking about sharing data with others in various ways and the effects of data sharing on research in the social sciences. The principal investigator survey consisted of questions about research data collected, various methods for sharing research data, attitudes about data sharing and demographic information.

Principal investigators were also asked about publications tied to the research project including information about their own publications, research team publications, and publications outside the research team. A total of 1,217 responses were received. After excluding principal investigators that did not collect primary research data and excluding principal investigators of dissertation awards, the final sample size is 1,021.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they are received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of police practitioner-research partnerships in the United States and examine the factors that prevent or facilitate development and sustainability of these partnerships. This study used a mixed method approach to examine the relationship between law enforcement in the United States and researchers. A nationally-representative sample of law enforcement agencies were randomly selected and given a survey in order to capture the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships and associated information. Then, representatives from 89 separate partnerships were interviewed, which were identified through the national survey. The primary purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into the barriers and facilitators of police and practitioner relationships as well as the benefits of this partnering. Lastly four case studies were conducted on model partnerships that were identified during interviews with practitioners and researchers.

With support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the goal of the Supporting Practice in the Arts, Research, and Curricula (SPARC) research project is to highlight the role of the arts in research universities and to support new modes of practice across the arts, research, curricula.

Using open-ended interviewee responses as the primary data source, combined with other sources of evidence and secondary research, the project explores the models, obstacles, implementation strategies, costs, and impact of arts-integrative practices on research, teaching, and promotion.

From 2012-2015, the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru) conducted a baseline data collection effort and study of 46 universities and including over 900 interviews. The goal was to discover the models, obstacles, implementation strategies, costs, and impact of arts integrative practices on research, teaching, and learning in higher education.

Following from the Phase I data collection, Phase II of SPARC Project (2015-2018) seeks to synthesize and disseminate the research findings.

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys includes the standard modules and covers the following special topics: (1) Climate Change, (2) Biodiversity, (3) and Discrimination of Minority Groups. Respondent's opinions were collected on which world issues they believed were the most serious problems, how serious the issue of climate change was and if the EU should be responsible for addressing it, and what actions the have personally taken to fight climate change. Additional questions were asked regarding biodiversity and the dangers presented problems such as the decline of natural habitats and animal and plant species, and how these issues should be addressed by various groups. Respondents were also queried about their knowledge of Natura 2000 and other nature protection networks. Lastly, respondents were questioned regarding their experiences of and attitudes toward discrimination.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, left-right political self-placement, household composition, ownership of durable goods, difficulties in paying bills, self-assessed social class, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries). Pre-archive/1st release version.

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys includes the standard modules and covers the following special topics: (1) Social Climate, and (2) Science, Research and Innovation. Respondent's opinions were collected on life satisfaction, area of living, healthcare, pension system, unemployment benefits, cost of benefits, the way the country is run, cost of living and affordability of energy and housing, in present time, in next twelve months and compared to five years ago. Thoughts about why people live in poverty were collected, general trustworthiness of people, views on how to help solve social and economic problems and views about education. As it relates to Science Research and Innovation respondents were asked how people's actions will affect the following 15 years from now: fight against climate change, Protections of the environment, energy supply, health and medical care, job creation, availability and quality of food, as well as transport and transport infrastructure. Opinions were collected on priorities for science and technological innovation. Respondents were asked about their academic past in studying science and technology.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of durable goods, difficulties in paying bills, self-assessed level in society, self-assessed social class, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. In Eurobarometer 79.2 the standard Eurobarometer module is not included however respondent and household demographics are included. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys cover the following special topics: (1) internal market (2) cultural activities (3) non-urban road use, quality and tolls (4) science and technology, and (5) undeclared work and tax fraud. In regard to the internal market, opinions were collected on the frequency of online purchases, technology used to make orders, types of goods purchased, problems experienced with online shopping, reasons why respondents do not purchase products online from other EU member states and distrust of online retailers. Respondents were asked if they were ever employed in an European state other than their home country and ways to assess quality of professional service providers. In queries on cultural activities, the frequency in which respondents visit museums, the cinema, public libraries in their home country and other EU countries were recorded as well as why they did not participate in cultural activities. Respondents were also asked if they participated in expressive arts such as dancing, writing poems, handicrafts, or playing musical instruments. In regard to non-urban road tolls respondents are polled on the frequency in which they use roads outside of cities, the quality and amount of congestion on those roads, purpose for using those roads. Opinions were collected on whether the government should spend more money on roads and their willingness to pay higher tolls. In the science and technology section, there are questions about interests in and knowledge of developments in science and technology, whether family members have formal credentials in science and technology, their source of information about the latest developments. Additionally, respondents were asked about the usefulness of science and technology. Lastly as it relates to undeclared work in the European Union respondents were asked if they know people who do not declare income, their awareness of the risk of getting caught, the consequences of getting caught and opinions on reasons for doing undeclared work.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

Purpose: Develop an easy-to-use data product to facilitate comparative effectiveness research involving complex patients.

Scope: Claims data can be difficult to use, requiring experience to most appropriately aggregate to the patient level and to create meaningful variables such as treatments, covariates, and endpoints. Easy to use data products will accelerate meaningful comparative effectiveness research (CER).

Methods: This project used data from the Medicare Chronic Condition Data Warehouse for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in 2007 with two-year follow-up and one-year pre-admission baseline. The project joined over 100 raw data files per condition to create research-ready person- and service-level analytic files, code templates, and macros while at the same time adding uniformity in measures of comorbid conditions and other covariates. The data product was tested in a project on statin effectiveness in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

Results: A programmer/analyst with no administrative claims data experience was able to use the data product to create an analytic dataset with minimal support aside from the documentation provided. Analytic dataset creation used the conditions, procedures, and timeline macros provided. The data structure created for AMI adapted successfully for stroke. Complexity increased and statin treatment decreased with age. The two-year survival benefit of statins post-AMI increased with age.

Conclusion: Claims data can be made more user-friendly for CER research on complex conditions. The data product should be expanded by refreshing the cohort and increasing follow-up. Action is warranted to increase the rate of statin use among the oldest patients.

Data Access: These data are not available from ICPSR. The data cannot be made publicly available. Data are stored on University of Iowa College of Public Health secure servers, and may be used only for projects covered within the aims of the original research protocol and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-approved data use agreement. Data sharing is allowed only for research protocols approved under data re-use requests by the CMS privacy board. The CMS process for data re-use requests is described at Research Data Assistance Center (ResDac). Please note that as of May 2013, the DUA covering this work is set to expire February 1, 2014. Thereafter, per the terms of the DUA, datasets created for this project may not be available.

User guides are available from ICPSR for detailed descriptions of the data products, including a user guide for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) Analytic Files and a user guide for Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) Analytic Files. Data dictionaries are available upon request. Please contact Nick Rudzianski ([email protected] or 319-335-9783) for more information.