To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Is logic intrinsically normative? Given that we often make errors in reasoning, one might hold that logic is not about how we do think but about how we ought to think. However, logical laws say nothing about thinking. How does logic gain normative traction on psychological processes such as belief formation or reasoning? To answer this question, the chapter begins by examining the debate between descriptivists, who hold that logic simply describes truth-preserving entailment relations, and normativists, who hold that logic is intrinsically normative. Husserl was a descriptivist, and Heidegger’s early work follows him. But Heidegger’s phenomenological account of the truth-predicate as grounded in the comportment of assertion, and his analysis of the “hermeneutic as” that grounds such comportment, affords a different perspective on the debate. Logic provides constitutive norms for the practice of reason-giving, a kind of rationality – being answerable to others – that is not an essential property of, but is nevertheless demanded by, Dasein’s being as “care.” The chapter concludes by showing how Heidegger’s phenomenological approach can affirm the main claims of descriptivism while insisting that “the reign of logic” in philosophy “disintegrates into the turbulence of a more original questioning.”
The use of “operational criteria” in DSM-III was proposed as a solution to low reliability among psychiatrist’s diagnosis. It is considered a turning point in the psychiatric classification and diagnostic process, furtherly adopted in ICD. However, the utility of using such criteria in everyday clinical practice is still not clear.
To measure agreement between prototypical and ICD-10 categorical diagnosis.
In IPUB’s outpatient clinics, psychiatry residents work in a real-life clinical scenario, attending patients from Rio de Janeiro/RJ-Brazil. Although regularly trained in ICD criteria, it is not usual to check every criterion in their daily practice. Thus, patients are diagnosed with a prototype-based disorder, not necessarily strictly attached to ICD criteria. We propose a cross-sectional study, where psychiatry residents check their clinical diagnosis according to ICD criteria and compare its agreement with kappa statistics.
Three of thirty residents joined the study, providing diagnosis for 146 patients under their care. Forty-five diagnoses were obtained before and 51 after ICD-10 criterion application. Diagnoses were grouped under 8 groups (Organic, Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, Bipolar Affective Disorder, Depression, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Personality Disorders, Neurodevelopmental Disorders), and kappa agreement obtained using ICD-10 diagnosis as the gold standard against prototypical diagnoses. Overall kappa was 0.77 (IC - 0.69 - 0.85), ranging from 0.58 (Personality Disorders) to 0.91 (Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder). These findings also were reflected as high sensibility, specificity, Positive Predictive, and Negative Predictive values in all groups.
Prototypical diagnostic elaboration, while probably based on previously learned, but not applied operational criteria, was equivalent to diagnostic obtained through ICD-10 categories.
Body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs) such as skin picking and hair pulling are frequent but under-diagnosed and under-treated psychological conditions. As of now, most studies use symptom-specific BFRB scales. However, a transdiagnostic scale is needed in view of the high co-morbidity of different BFRBs.
We aimed to assess the reliability as well as concurrent and divergent validity of a newly developed transdiagnostic BFRB scale.
For the first time, we administered the 8-item Generic BFRB Scale (GBS-8) as well as the Repetitive Body Focused Behavior Scale (RBFBS), modified for adults, in 279 individuals with BFRBs. The GBS-8 builds upon the Skin Picking Scale-Revised (SPS-R), but has been adapted to capture different BFRBs concurrently. A total of 170 participants (61%) were re-assessed after 6 weeks to determine the test–retest reliability of the scale.
Similar to the SPS-R, factor analysis yielded two dimensions termed symptom severity and impairment. The test–retest reliability of the scale was satisfactory (r = .72, p<.001). Concurrent validity (r = .74) with the RBFBS was good (correlational indexes for concurrent validity were significantly higher than that for discriminant validity).
The GBS-8 appears to be a reliable and valid global measure of BFRBs. We recommend usage of the scale in combination with specific BFRB scales to facilitate comparability across studies on obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders.
The study was to evaluate the reproducibility and validity of the FFQ for residents of northeast China. A total of 131 participants completed two FFQ (FFQ1 and FFQ2) within a 3-month period, 125 participants completed 8-d weighed diet records (WDR) and 112 participants completed blood biomarker testing. Reproducibility was measured by comparing nutrient and food intake between FFQ1 and FFQ2. The validity of the FFQ was assessed by WDR and the triad method. The Spearman correlation coefficients (SCC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for reproducibility ranged from 0·41 to 0·69 (median = 0·53) and from 0·18 to 0·68 (median = 0·53) for energy and nutrients and from 0·37 to 0·73 (median = 0·59) and from 0·33 to 0·86 (median = 0·60) for food groups, respectively. The classifications of same or adjacent quartiles ranged from 73·64 to 93·80 % for both FFQ. The crude SCC between the FFQ and WDR ranged from 0·27 to 0·55 (median = 0·46) for the energy and nutrients and from 0·26 to 0·70 (median = 0·52) for food groups, and classifications of the same or adjacent quartiles ranged from 65·32 to 86·29 %. The triad method indicated that validation coefficients for the FFQ were above 0·3 for most nutrients, which indicated a moderate or high level of validity. The FFQ that was developed for residents of northeast China for the Northeast Cohort Study of China is reliable and valid for assessing the intake of most foods and nutrients.
The questionnaire, one of the most frequently used methods in the study of language attitudes, can be used to elicit both qualitative and quantitative data. This chapter focuses on the questionnaire as a means of eliciting quantitative data by means of closed questions. It begins by examining the strengths of doing this (e.g. the fact that the resulting data can easily be compared and analysed across participants) as well as the limitations (e.g. the fact that issues unforeseen by the researcher usually do not come to the fore). The chapter then discusses key issues in research planning and design: for example, question types, question wording, question order, reliability and validity, and more general issues regarding questionnaire design. The chapter also considers questionnaire distribution. The exploration of data analysis and interpretation focuses on data cleaning and coding, statistical analyses, and some points of caution regarding the interpretation of findings from questionnaire-based studies. A case study of language attitudes in Quebec serves to illustrate the main points made in the chapter. The chapter concludes with further important considerations regarding the context-specificity of findings and the benefits of combining questionnaires with other methods of attitude elicitation.
To determine the relative validity and reproducibility of the Eetscore FFQ, a short screener for assessing diet quality, in patients with (severe) obesity before and after bariatric surgery (BS).
The Eetscore FFQ was evaluated against 3-d food records (3d-FR) before (T0) and 6 months after BS (T6) by comparing index scores of the Dutch Healthy Diet index 2015 (DHD2015-index). Relative validity was assessed using paired t tests, Kendall’s tau-b correlation coefficients (τb), cross-classification by tertiles, weighted kappa values (kw) and Bland–Altman plots. Reproducibility of the Eetscore FFQ was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Regional hospital, the Netherlands.
Hundred and forty participants with obesity who were scheduled for BS.
At T0, mean total DHD2015-index score derived from the Eetscore FFQ was 10·2 points higher than the food record-derived score (P < 0·001) and showed an acceptable correlation (τb = 0·42, 95 % CI: 0·27, 0·55). There was a fair agreement with a correct classification of 50 % (kw = 0·37, 95 % CI: 0·25, 0·49). Correlation coefficients of the individual DHD components varied from 0·01–0·54. Similar results were observed at T6 (τb = 0·31, 95 % CI: 0·12, 0·48, correct classification of 43·7 %; kw = 0·25, 95 % CI: 0·11, 0·40). Reproducibility of the Eetscore FFQ was good (ICC = 0·78, 95 % CI: 0·69, 0·84).
The Eetscore FFQ showed to be acceptably correlated with the DHD2015-index derived from 3d-FR, but absolute agreement was poor. Considering the need for dietary assessment methods that reduce the burden for patients, practitioners and researchers, the Eetscore FFQ can be used for ranking according to diet quality and for monitoring changes over time.
This study is aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Cancer Stigma Scale for the Turkish population (CASS-T).
The sample of the study consisted of 412 students of a foundation university located in Ankara, Turkey. The reliability of the CASS was evaluated using the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient and item-total score correlations. Exploratory factor analyses were applied to examine the factor structure of the scale and its construct validity. To test the time invariance of the scale, the relationships between the scores obtained from the first and second applications were examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of CASS-T was 0.83. In the factor analysis, it was confirmed that the scale has a six-dimensional structure in parallel to original version, namely Avoidance, Severity, Responsibility, Policy opposition, Awkwardness, and Discrimination. The ICC values all remained in the range that indicates the reliability of the 0.63–0.71 to be substantial. The contribution of the six factors of the CASS-T scale to the variance is 57.8.
Significance in results
The Turkish version of the CASS was confirmed to have good reliability and validity for evaluating stigma toward cancer in Turkish society.
Testing vocabulary is similar to testing in other areas of language knowledge and use. The same criteria of reliability, validity, practicality, and washback need to be considered when designing and evaluating vocabulary tests. In some ways testing vocabulary is easier than testing grammatical knowledge or control of discourse because the units to test are more obviously separate. It is not too difficult to identify what a word type is. However, there are problems and issues and we look at these in this chapter. This chapter has two major divisions. The first major division looks at the purposes of vocabulary tests, covering diagnostic, placement, achievement, and proficiency tests. The second major division looks at different test formats, answering questions like: Should choices be given? Should words be tested in context? How can I measure words that learners don’t know well? This section covers a wide range of vocabulary test formats, along with comments on their design and use.
All patent cases are heard by the specialized IP chamber of the District Court of the Hague. Appeals (which are de novo) are heard by the specialized chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Hague. Thereafter an appeal (on points of law) is possible without the necessity of leave to the Supreme Court. The specialized chamber in first instance issues between about fifty and seventy decisions each year. The Court of Appeal issues about twenty and the Supreme Court around five. Of course, numbers vary from year to year. The courts have a good reputation in patent matters. The UK, German and Dutch courts take into consideration each other’s decisions in cases invoking the same European Patent and normally give reasons if they do not follow each other’s decision (which is more the exception than the rule). The Netherlands does not have a bifurcated system for patent cases: validity and infringement are always dealt with in the same proceedings. Thus, if an infringer challenges the validity of the patent, the court will normally first decide on the validity of the patent and only turn to infringement if the validity of the patent is upheld. In other words, a Dutch court will not order an injunction unless it has first established that the patent is valid, and the only way that an injunction can be granted on the basis of a patent that is later invalidated is if the decision on validity is overturned on appeal.1 This is true in proceedings on the merits, where the court will always rule on the validity of the patent if it is challenged, but also in interim relief proceedings, where the court will make a preliminary assessment of the patent's validity before imposing interim relief, denying it if there is a reasonable, not-to-be-ignored chance that the patent will be revoked or invalidated.
Israeli law, in general, is based on the principles of English common law, in which an injunction is perceived as a form of equitable, discretionary relief.1 Historically, injunctive relief was granted based on discretionary criteria, including the irreparable injury rule (in the absence of an injunction, the plaintiff would be caused an irreparable injury, which could not be compensated for by monetary relief); the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant (known also as the “balance of convenience”); and the clean hands rule (equitable relief is only granted if the plaintiff acted in a decent and moral manner, disclosing the relevant facts).2 Another important criterion was the public interest.3
Experiments are a central methodology in the social sciences. Scholars from every discipline regularly turn to experiments. Practitioners rely on experimental evidence in evaluating social programs, policies, and institutions. This book is about how to “think” about experiments. It argues that designing a good experiment is a slow moving process (given the host of considerations) which is counter to the current fast moving temptations available in the social sciences. The book includes discussion of the place of experiments in the social science process, the assumptions underlying different types of experiments, the validity of experiments, the application of different designs, how to arrive at experimental questions, the role of replications in experimental research, and the steps involved in designing and conducting “good” experiments. The goal is to ensure social science research remains driven by important substantive questions and fully exploits the potential of experiments in a thoughtful manner.
Canada is a federal system with jurisdiction shared between the federal government and the provinces. Patent law is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction and is based on the federal Patent Act. The federal nature of Canada is reflected in a bifurcated judicial system. The Federal Courts of Canada, a statutory court system with defined jurisdiction,1 and the provincial superior courts, courts of inherent jurisdiction, corresponding to the traditional English common law courts, both have jurisdiction over patent infringement.2 However, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to declare a patent invalid,3 and the very substantial majority of patent cases are decided by the Federal Court. Consequently, it is largely the case law of the Federal Courts which governs the grant of injunctive relief in patent cases, subject to the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada.4
For patent litigation, Germany is among the most frequented venues in Europe.1 Both large, international law firms and highly specialized boutique firms are active before German courts. Not only the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) but also a handful of major first- and second-instance venues, such as Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim and München, play an important role in shaping German patent law. Stakeholders, such as patentees, licensees, inhouse and outside counsel, scholars and non-German courts or lawmakers, therefore have a strong interest not only in the established legal framework for patent litigation in Germany, but also in shifts this framework is, of late, undergoing. At the same time, the language barrier complicates insights on these matters, not least for Anglo-American stakeholders, although a slowly increasing part of scholarship, and even of case law, is available in English. Against that background, this chapter sets out to explain basic structures and recent developments in German patent injunction law. It covers the main types of and requirements for such injunctions under German law (Section A), the injunction’s scope as claimed and granted (Section B), bifurcation and stays (Section C), defences and limitations (Section D), as well as alternatives to injunctive relief (Section E), before a conclusion and an outlook (Section G) round off the chapter.
United States courts take a context-sensitive approach to the grant of injunctive relief for US patent infringement. Such context-sensitivity is consistent with the US Patent Act, which indicates that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.”1 In common law jurisdictions, “equity” is generally viewed as resistant to strict rules and willing to make exceptions in light of particular circumstances.2 In accordance with this vision of equity, the generalist trial judges of US district courts3 consider various factors in determining whether injunctive relief is justified and have great discretion to tailor injunctions in a particular case.4 On the other hand, US courts have continued to grant injunctive relief in most infringement cases in which a patent owner prevails, particularly when the patent owner is in direct competition with the adjudged infringer.5 In contrast, US courts commonly deny injunctive relief for patent owners who are “nonpracticing entities” or “patent trolls” – forms of patent-owning entities that do not engage in substantial commercialization or use of the patented invention or variants of it.6 Further, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the US Patent Act does not authorize injunctions to correct past patent infringement.7 Instead, injunctions are to be granted only as a means to prevent future infringement.8
Most UK patent litigation takes place in England and Wales, where it is heard by either the Patents Court (larger, more complex and/or more valuable cases) or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (smaller, less complex and/or less valuable cases). These are both specialised courts. It is normal in both courts for issues of infringement and validity of the patent to be heard together. The intellectual property bar in England and Wales consists of a considerable number of highly specialised and skilful advocates, most of whom have a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degree as well as a legal qualification. They are instructed by both large multinational firms and small boutique firms of lawyers, and they are well known for being innovative, particularly with regard to procedural questions. Although there is a reasonable volume of UK patent litigation, disputes concerning injunctions are relatively infrequent.
In France, the question of injunctive relief for infringement of patents has only given rise to a very limited number of academic studies.1 Although there are quite a lot of court decisions dealing with this topic, the courts generally do not explain their reasoning on this particular point. In France, patent injunctions can only be handled2 by the specialized IP chambers3 of the general jurisdictions of Paris, which are the Tribunal Judiciaire (formerly known as the Tribunal de Grande Instance) de Paris on first instance, where the judgment is generally delivered within eighteen months, and, on appeal, the Cour d’appel de Paris, where the cases are generally adjudicated within twelve months. The highest court, the Cour de cassation only deals with matters of law, and not fact.4 On average, 170 court decisions on patent litigation were delivered per year in France between 2015 and 2019.
Injunctive relief can be found in all Polish patent statutes in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.1 The Industrial Property Law2 (IPL) that currently regulates industrial property rights including patents also envisages this form of relief. Article 287 section 1 of the IPL provides that a patentee whose patent has been infringed, as well as exclusive licensees, may – apart from other remedies – demand injunctive relief. Generally, injunctions are perceived as a necessary corollary to patents. Patents, as exclusive rights, provide patentees with exclusivity to use an invention within limits provided in the law. The availability of injunctive relief allows patentees to protect that exclusivity.
Injunctive relief made its first appearance in Italian legislative texts with the adoption of the 1939 Law on Patents, which empowered a court dealing with an infringement action to issue, on request of the interested party and, at court’s discretion, upon payment of a bond, an interim1 injunction preventing the fabrication and use of the patented invention for the time needed to reach a decision on the merits and for such decision to become final.2 For a long time, this has been the only provision mentioning injunctive relief in the Law on Patents.
At the time of writing, the United Kingdom remains a member state of the European Union. Accordingly, this chapter is written from that perspective. My thesis is simply stated: European law not merely enables, but requires, the courts of the member states to be flexible when considering whether or not to grant an injunction in a patent case, and to tailor any injunction to the circumstances of the case. An injunction can only be granted when, and to the extent that, it is proportionate and strikes a fair balance between the fundamental rights that are engaged. All that is needed is for the courts of the member states consistently to apply the principles laid down by the legislature and by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
On 1 September 2013 the jurisdiction in intellectual property matters in Finland was reformed. The Market Court, which was created in 2002 for consumer protection and competition law cases, was now also given exclusive jurisdiction in patent, trademark and design registration appeals, and intellectual property disputes (infringement, invalidity etc.).1 Previously, the District Court of Helsinki had exclusive jurisdiction in patent disputes and the Finnish Patent Office dealt not only with registration matters but also with registration appeals.