Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Wrong
Terms modified by Wrong Selected AbstractsARE THE ASSESSING CARE OF VULNERABLE ELDERS QUALITY INDICATORS FOR HYPERTENSION WRONG?JOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 7 2008David G. Sutin MD No abstract is available for this article. [source] COMMENTARY: WHAT'S WRONG WITH GHOSTWRITING?BIOETHICS, Issue 6 2010CARL ELLIOTT No abstract is available for this article. [source] NICHOLAS WOLTERSTORFF'S JUSTICE: RIGHTS AND WRONGS: AN INTRODUCTIONJOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS, Issue 2 2009Paul Weithman ABSTRACT This introduction sets the stage for four papers on Nicholas Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs, written by Harold Attridge, Oliver O'Donovan, Richard Bernstein, and myself. In his book, Wolterstorff defends an account of human rights. The first section of this introduction distinguishes Wolterstorff's account of rights from the alternative account of rights against which he contends. The alternative account draws much of its power from a historical narrative according to which theory and politics supplanted earlier ways of thinking about justice. The second section sketches that narrative and Wolterstorff's counter-narrative. The third section draws together the main points of Wolterstorff's own account. [source] DIFFERENT WRONGS, DIFFERENT REMEDIES?PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2006REACTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES AFTER PROCEDURAL AND INTERACTIONAL INJUSTICE To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed. [source] NONIDENTITY, WRONGFUL CONCEPTION AND HARMLESS WRONGSRATIO, Issue 3 2005P. J. Markie Joel Feinberg and Dan Brock have independently developed a solution to the Problem of Nonidentity as it occurs in cases where a mother's negligent act of conception causes her child to be born with a severe disability. I display three problems in the Feinberg-Brock proposal and develop an alternative view that explains both cases of wrongful conception and additional instances of the Problem of Nonidentity presented by Derek Parfit and others. [source] What's Wrong with Corporate Governance: a noteCORPORATE GOVERNANCE, Issue 4 2004Richard W. Leblanc Greater use of qualitative research methods , including observing boards in real time and interviewing directors , needs to occur to advance the field. Quantitative researchers are, it would seem, measuring variables in respect of "structural independence," rather than board and individual director effectiveness, per se. Once "board effectiveness" and "director effectiveness" variables are able to be measured, together with their interaction, a greater likelihood of distilling a more definitive relationship between corporate governance and corporate financial performance may occur. [source] Straight Talk About Your Child's Mental Health: What To Do When Something Seems WrongFAMILY RELATIONS, Issue 1 2006Janet C. Benavente No abstract is available for this article. [source] Learning Styles,How Making Too Many "Wrong Mistakes" Is the Right Thing to Do: A Response to SparksFOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS, Issue 3 2006Obdulia Castro First page of article [source] All Models are Wrong, How Do We Know Which are Useful?GROUND WATER, Issue 4 2007Article first published online: 26 JUN 200 No abstract is available for this article. [source] Executive Selection,What's Right , and What's WrongINDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2009GEORGE P. HOLLENBECK Although recent reviews of executive selection have catalogued much that we as industrial,organizational (I,O) psychologists are doing right in our research and practice, we are confronted with the facts that executive selection decisions are often, if not usually, wrong and that I,O psychologists seldom have a place at the table when these decisions are made. This article suggests that in our thinking we have failed to differentiate executive selection from selection at lower levels and that we have applied the wrong models. Our hope for the future lies not in job analyses, developing new tests, meta-analyses, or seeking psychometric validity, but in viewing executive selection as a judgment and decision-making problem. With the right focus, applying our considerable methodological skills should enable us to contribute toward making better judgments. When we have a better mousetrap, organizations (if not the world) will beat a path to our door. [source] What's Wrong with Exploitation?JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, Issue 2 2007ROBERT MAYER abstract,This paper offers a new answer to an old question. Others have argued that exploitation is wrong because it is coercive, or degrading, or fails to protect the vulnerable. But these answers only work for certain cases; counter-examples are easily found. In this paper I identify a different answer to the question by placing exploitation within the larger family of wrongs to which it belongs. Exploitation is one species of wrongful gain, and exploiters always gain at the expense of others by inflicting relative losses on disadvantaged parties. They do harm to their victims, even when their interactions are mutually advantageous, by failing to benefit the disadvantaged party as fairness requires. This failure is the essential wrong in every case of wrongful exploitation. At the end of the paper I assess how wrong this failure is as a way to gain at another's expense. [source] Population Trends in BMD Testing, Treatment, and Hip and Wrist Fracture Rates: Are the Hip Fracture Projections Wrong?JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, Issue 6 2005Susan B Jaglal PhD Abstract A worldwide epidemic of hip fractures has been predicted. Time trends in BMD testing, bone-sparing medications and hip and wrist fractures in the province of Ontario, Canada, were examined. From 1996 to 2001, BMD testing and use of bone-sparing medications increased each year, whereas despite the aging of the population, wrist and hip fracture rates decreased. Introduction: If patients with osteoporosis are being diagnosed and effective treatments used with increasing frequency in the population, rates of hip and wrist fractures will remain stable or possibly decrease. We report here time trends in BMD testing, prescriptions for bone-sparing medications, hip and wrist fracture rates, and population projections of fracture rates to 2005 in the province of Ontario, Canada. Materials and Methods: Ontario residents have universal access to Medicare. To examine time trends in BMD testing, all physician claims for DXA from 1992 to 2001 were selected from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database. Trends in prescribing were examined from 1996 to 2003 using data from the Ontario Drug Benefit plan, which provides coverage to persons ,65 years of age. Actual numbers of hip and wrist fractures were determined for 1992-2000 and population projections for 2001-2005 using time-series analysis. Wrist fractures were identified in the OHIP database and hip fractures through hospital discharge abstracts. Results: From 1992 to 2001, the number of BMD tests increased 10-fold. There has been a steady increase in the number of persons filling prescriptions for antiresorptives (12,298 in 1996 to 225,580 in 2003) and the majority were for etidronate. For women, the rate of decline for wrist fractures is greater than that for hip fractures. The rate of hip fracture was fairly constant around 41 per 10,000 women ,50 years between 1992 and 1996. In 1997, the hip fracture rate began to decrease, and the population projections suggest that this downward trend will continue to a rate of 33.1 per 10,000 in 2005. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that fracture rates may be on the decline, despite the aging of the population, because of increased patterns of diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis. [source] Blood Pressure Goals for Hypertension Guidelines: What Is Wrong With "Optimal"?JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, Issue 12 2006Thomas D. Giles MD First page of article [source] Doing Wrong Without Creating HarmJOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 1 2010John M. Darley We investigate lay intuitions about the appropriate compensatory and retributive consequences of a wrongdoer putting another in harm's way when harm either does or does not result. Compensation tracked whether the harm actually occurred, though when harm has not yet occurred but might, participants prefer an escrow-like solution in which money will be available to the victim only if the risk matures into actual harm. Retributive sanctions (punitive damages, fines, prison terms) were largely unaffected by whether the harm materialized but were instead sensitive to whether the wrongdoer exhibited negligent or reckless conduct. Thus, subjects clearly differentiated between the retributive nature of punitive sanctions and the compensatory nature of restorative damages. Finally, subjects often assigned liability to the actor even when the risk-causing actions were not negligent,and in this way preferred a strict liability stance more than does the current legal doctrine. [source] What's Wrong with Pretty?JOURNAL OF INTERIOR DESIGN, Issue 3 2007Caroline Hill First page of article [source] What's Wrong With These People?JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY, Issue 1 2009Clinicians' Views of Clinical Couples Marriage and family therapy (MFT) faculty and graduate students rated the "typical" or predictable behaviors of husbands or wives coming for therapy using the Georgia Marriage Q-sort. Scores were compared with previously published scores for both "ideal" couples (i.e., showing positive behaviors, attitudes, and problem-solving skills) and a sample of 136 nonclinical, community couples. A review of correlations between MFT raters' scores for clients and the scores for "ideal" or actual community husbands or wives indicated that clinicians have negative views of both clinical husbands and wives. Such negative views of clinical husbands and wives are particularly marked in scores by MFT faculty. MFT students had a similarly negative view of clinical husbands, but such views were not evident for clinical wives. Recommendations for MFT training and implications for future research are discussed. [source] What's Wrong With Infinite Regresses?METAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 5 2001Daniel Nolan It is almost universally believed that some infinite regresses are vicious, and also almost universally believed that some are benign. In this paper I argue that regresses can be vicious for several different sorts of reasons. Furthermore, I claim that some intuitively vicious regresses do not suffer from any of the particular aetiologies that guarantee viciousness to regresses, but are nevertheless so on the basis of considerations of parsimony. The difference between some apparently benign and some apparently vicious regresses, then, turns out to be a matter of a more general assessment of costs and benefits, making viciousness of regresses in some cases less of a local matter than is usually thought. [source] Response to Mallory: You Are Civilized, but Still Wrong, Dr. MalloryPEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, Issue 7 2007Andrew Bush MD, FRCPCH No abstract is available for this article. [source] What's Really Wrong with the Limited Quantity View?RATIO, Issue 2 2001Tim Mulgan In Part Four of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit seeks Theory X , the Utilitarian account of the morality of choices where the number of people who will ever exist depends upon our actions. Parfit argues that X has yet to be found. The two simplest versions of Theory X are Total Utilitarianism and Average Utilitarianism. Unfortunately, Parfit argues, each of these leads to unacceptable results. Parfit explores various alternatives and finds them all unsatisfactory. This paper deals with one of those alternatives: the Limited Quantity View. I argue that ParfitÃ,s argument against this view fails. However, I then present a new and more general objection which defeats a broad range of utilitarian views, including the Limited Quantity View. [source] Proving the Skeptics Wrong: Why Major Health Reform Can Happen Despite the OddsTHE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 4 2008Chris Jennings Notwithstanding the pessimistic prognostications of Washington's cynical elite, broad health reform is achievable precisely because it is an economic and fiscal imperative. Indeed, the stakeholders with the greatest power to promote or undermine progress are on board, concluding that the status quo is unsustainable and the second best option is no longer to do nothing. [source] What's Wrong with Health Inequalities?*THE JOURNAL OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, Issue 1 2007Daniel M. Hausman First page of article [source] What is Wrong with Inheritance Tax?THE POLITICAL QUARTERLY, Issue 2 2008RAJIV PRABHAKAR No abstract is available for this article. [source] What's Wrong with This Approach, Comrades?ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, Issue 1 2006Bee Flowers Though strenuously avoiding the ,Modernist' and ,International Style' labels, postwar USSR, along with its Western counterparts, plunged headlong into a system-building programme. Today, Russians know of virtually no other form of housing and, as photographer Bee Flowers observes, the construction sector continues to produce ever larger buildings, for no apparent reason other than habit. [source] What Was Wrong with Abercrombie & Fitch's "Magalog"?1BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW, Issue 4 2006EARL W. SPURGIN First page of article [source] Comments: Failing but Learning: Writing the Wrongs after Redford and TaberCONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 4 2006ANDREW T. KNIGHT No abstract is available for this article. [source] Writing the Wrongs: Developing a Safe-Fail Culture in ConservationCONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 6 2000Article first published online: 7 JUL 200 No abstract is available for this article. [source] Justice: Right and Wrongs,by Nicholas WolterstorffDIALOG, Issue 4 2009Ellen Van Stichel No abstract is available for this article. [source] NICHOLAS WOLTERSTORFF'S JUSTICE: RIGHTS AND WRONGS: AN INTRODUCTIONJOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS, Issue 2 2009Paul Weithman ABSTRACT This introduction sets the stage for four papers on Nicholas Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs, written by Harold Attridge, Oliver O'Donovan, Richard Bernstein, and myself. In his book, Wolterstorff defends an account of human rights. The first section of this introduction distinguishes Wolterstorff's account of rights from the alternative account of rights against which he contends. The alternative account draws much of its power from a historical narrative according to which theory and politics supplanted earlier ways of thinking about justice. The second section sketches that narrative and Wolterstorff's counter-narrative. The third section draws together the main points of Wolterstorff's own account. [source] Reductionism and Antireductionism: Rights and WrongsMETAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 5 2004Todd Jones Abstract: Scholars are divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world. While reductive analysis is the standard mode of explanation in many areas of science and everyday life, many scholars consider reductionism a sign of "intellectual naïveté and backwardness." This article makes three points about the proper status of antireductionism: First, reduction is, in fact, a centrally important epistemic strategy. Second, reduction to physics is always possible for all causal properties. Third, there are, nevertheless, reasons why we want science to discover properties and explanations other than reductive physical ones. [source] Righting Wrongs: John Henry Ingram's First Publication on PoePOE STUDIES, Issue 1-2 2001David Degener First page of article [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||