全文获取类型
| 收费全文 | 222篇 |
| 免费 | 1篇 |
专业分类
| 教育 | 146篇 |
| 科学研究 | 22篇 |
| 各国文化 | 2篇 |
| 体育 | 26篇 |
| 文化理论 | 2篇 |
| 信息传播 | 25篇 |
出版年
| 2023年 | 1篇 |
| 2022年 | 4篇 |
| 2021年 | 8篇 |
| 2020年 | 3篇 |
| 2019年 | 12篇 |
| 2018年 | 24篇 |
| 2017年 | 13篇 |
| 2016年 | 18篇 |
| 2015年 | 7篇 |
| 2014年 | 13篇 |
| 2013年 | 29篇 |
| 2012年 | 14篇 |
| 2011年 | 5篇 |
| 2010年 | 8篇 |
| 2009年 | 8篇 |
| 2008年 | 6篇 |
| 2007年 | 5篇 |
| 2006年 | 3篇 |
| 2005年 | 6篇 |
| 2004年 | 7篇 |
| 2003年 | 2篇 |
| 2002年 | 4篇 |
| 2000年 | 6篇 |
| 1999年 | 2篇 |
| 1998年 | 2篇 |
| 1997年 | 1篇 |
| 1996年 | 3篇 |
| 1993年 | 1篇 |
| 1987年 | 1篇 |
| 1984年 | 1篇 |
| 1979年 | 1篇 |
| 1977年 | 1篇 |
| 1976年 | 1篇 |
| 1967年 | 1篇 |
| 1956年 | 1篇 |
| 1828年 | 1篇 |
排序方式： 共有223条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
221.
Background
Older adults face different challenges that affect their daily living. One of the most challenging and hazardous activities of everyday living, especially in the elderly, is stair climbing. Therefore the ability of stair climbing is inter alia used as an indicator for physical fitness and an independent life without the need of support. But until now there has not been an alternative to test the stair climbing ability than to actually climb stairs by using the stair up and down test. Therefore, this study evaluates a self-efficacy questionnaire as a complementing instrument to predict stair climbing abilities.Methods
A new instrument has been developed for German-speaking countries to assess the role of stair self-efficacy for older people (SSE). The instrument, based on the questionnaire from Hamel and Cavanagh (2004), assesses stair self-efficacy during the performance of 10 different staircase management situations and gathers information about participation in these staircase situations. Reliability and construct validity of the questionnaire were tested with a sample of 121 older adults who completed the SSE questionnaire and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC-D) scale. As an additional validity check, 90 participants performed stair climbing in a physical test.Results
Statistical analysis via a factor analysis showed that the SSE questionnaire is one-dimensional. In addition, reliability was tested by using Cronbach’s alpha and the split-half method via Spearman–Brown to calculate the internal consistency. Both methods yielded adequate results and furthermore the reliability was established via the results of the test–retest reliability. Validity was tested by the parallel testing, using the Pearson correlation between the SSE score and ABC scale, as well as physical testing.Conclusions
Taken together, the SSE questionnaire offers the possibility to evaluate stair climbing performance without the need for physical performance. This questionnaire is especially helpful because the participants do not need to become physically stressed and exposed to the risk of falling before they are confident enough to climb stairs.222.
223.
In recent years questions concerning the impact of public research funding have become the preeminent site at which struggles
over the meanings and value of science are played out. In this paper we explore the ‘politics of impact’ in contemporary UK
science and research policy and, in particular, detail the ways in which UK research councils have responded to and reframed
recent calls for the quantitative measurement of research impacts. Operating as ‘boundary organisations’ research councils
are embroiled in what might be characterised as the ‘politics of demarcation’ in which competing understandings of the cultural
values of science are traded, exchanged and contested. In this paper we focus on the way the UK’s ‘Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council’ (EPSRC) has responded to contemporary policy discourses concerning the impacts of public research
expenditure. We argue that, in response to the shifting terms of contemporary science policy, the EPSRC has adopted three
distinct strategies. Firstly, in collaboration with other research councils the EPSRC have emphasised the intellectual and
metrological challenge presented by attempts to quantify the economic impact of public research expenditure, emphasising instead
the cumulative impacts of a broad portfolio of ‘basic science’. Secondly, the EPSRC has sought to widen the discursive meaning
of research impacts – specifically to include societal and policy impacts in addition to economic ones. Thirdly, the EPSRC
has introduced a new framing into the ‘impact agenda’, preferring to talk about ‘pathways to impact’ rather than research
impacts per se. In responding to government priority setting, we argue that the EPSRC has sought to exploit both the technical fragility
of auditing techniques and the discursive ambiguity of notions of impact. 相似文献