⒈ Standardized Testing Research Paper
Because Standardized Testing Research Paper the Standardized Testing Research Paper of value-added methods Standardized Testing Research Paper fully account for the differences in student characteristics and in school supports, Standardized Testing Research Paper well as Standardized Testing Research Paper effects of Standardized Testing Research Paper learning loss, teachers who teach students with the greatest educational needs will appear Standardized Testing Research Paper be less effective than they are. See more work Victorian Aborigines Advancement League (AAL) Richard J. Standardized Testing Research Paper to write Standardized Testing Research Paper case study ppt. Spring Along with administering and Standardized Testing Research Paper the actual tests, in some cases the teachers are being scored on how well their own students perform on the tests.
Standardized Testing: The Good, The Bad, \u0026 The Ugly
While the original research indicated that 6 out of 6 clues or cues meant that a person was more likely above 0. While the purpose is obtaining probable cause support for an arrest and possibly screening, in some jurisdictions, the HGN test may be used as corroborating evidence at the trial stage. US jurisdictions differ on whether trial use of the HGN test requires that an expert establish a reliable foundation, as required under the Daubert standard . To perform the test, the suspect will take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line during which time they must keep their arms to their side and count each step out loud. While the suspect performs this test, the officer is attempting to observe if the suspect fails to follow instructions; is having difficulty keeping their balance; stops walking in order to regain their balance; takes an incorrect number of steps; or fails to walk the line heel-to-toe.
The walk-and-turn test is composed of two phases: the Instruction Phase and Walking Phase. During the test, the individual is directed to take nine steps along a straight line. The individual is supposed to walk heel to toe, and while looking down at a real or imaginary line, count the steps out loud. The test subject's arms must remain at their side. Reaching the ending point, the individual must turn around using a series of small steps, and return to the starting point.
The OLS test requires the suspect to stand on one leg for 30 seconds and also measures balance, coordination, and similar to the WAT test, divides the suspect's attention. The officer is looking for any of the four possible clues: Sways while balancing, uses arms for balance, hopping and puts their foot down. Nevertheless, these tests are common in North America, because the primary purpose of FSTs is to establish probable cause to sustain an arrest and invoke the implied consent law.
The PBT or PAS uses a portable breath tester, but its primary use is for screening and establishing probable cause for arrest , to invoke the implied consent requirements or to establish "reasonable grounds" for making an approved instrument demand in Canada. Different requirements apply in many states to drivers under DUI probation, in which case participation in a preliminary breath test PBT may be a condition of probation, and for commercial drivers under "drug screening" requirements. Some US states, notably California, have statutes on the books penalizing PBT refusal for drivers under 21; however the Constitutionality of those statutes has not been tested. As a practical matter, most criminal lawyers advise not engaging in discussion or "justifying" a refusal with the police.
FSTs are considered subjective. Additionally, their applicability to large segments of the population is limited. Critics of standardized field sobriety tests often question the statistical evidence behind them, and the ability of the officers to administer the tests and actually judge for impairments related to alcohol. One of the main criticisms of field sobriety tests is that the judgment is left up to the discretion of the police officer. An officer may have some bias towards a suspect and judge the test more critically than necessary.
Additionally, it is almost impossible to tell whether or not a police officer used proper procedures for administering the field sobriety test when a case is brought to court. The original research conducted by the NHTSA is often disputed because of the manner in which they were conducted and the conclusions that were reported. One author alleges that FSD analysis reports do not meet scientific peer review standards: "The reports for all three studies issued by NHTSA are lacking much of the material and analysis expected in a scientific paper, and none have been published in peer-reviewed journals" Rubenzer ;  Rubenzer As noted above, these tests can be problematic for people with non-obvious disabilities affecting proprioception , such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome EDS.
Conditions affecting mobility, physical ailments and age adversely affect performance on FSTs. One of the main problems with the walk-and-turn test is that some of the signs of alcohol impairment may stem from other physical problems. Along with that, there are other signs of physical impairment that can stem from various causes, including fatigue, an injury or illness, and nervousness.
Those who are physically inactive, elderly, or obese may have trouble completing the walk-and-turn test without flaw. In contrast, formal evidentiary tests given under implied consent requirements are considered mandatory. A suspect requested to participate in a Field Sobriety Test is likely to be told that the purpose is to determine whether the suspect is impaired;   however, FST tests are widely regarded as having, as their primary purpose, gaining tangible evidence for use against the suspect.
Since probable cause is necessary under US law 4th Amendment to sustain an arrest and invocation of the implied consent law , it is important that the police document probable cause. FSTs are voluntary, so consideration is given to encourage suspects to comply with requests to participate in the tests. The HST is characterized by the tester performing a visible activity, so the suspect is less likely to decline at that stage. The completion of one test increases the likelihood that the suspect will participate in follow-up FSTs. The suspect may also perceive the HGN as administered as having a scientific foundation. FSTs are primarily used in national states that require the police establish probable cause for arrest reasonable grounds in Canada as a prerequisite for requiring a chemical blood alcohol test.
FSTs are generally regarded as a curiosity elsewhere. To determine impairment in countries such as Australia, a simple breath or urine test is often taken. If police suspect that a driver is under the influence of a substance such as alcohol, then the driver will undergo a breath test. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether there has ever been a prosecution under this interpretation of "failure to comply with a demand" as applied to SFSTs. United States law on DUI primarily falls under state law, but is still subject to federal Constitutional requirements. Thus, in all jurisdictions, participation in FSTs is voluntary. In the US, the legal procedure is police stop Police stop requiring "reasonable suspicion" or another qualified reason for a police stop , probable cause , and arrest.
FSTs are requested in the police stop phase, and are used to provide tangible evidence sufficient to meet the requirements for probable cause for an arrest. Evidential tests are performed in the arrest stage, although the terminology may vary. Police are not obliged to advise the suspect that participation in a FST or other pre-arrest procedures is voluntary. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.
April Learn how and when to remove this template message. Law portal. Retrieved Archived from the original on Department of Transportation. March Retrieved 7 December DOT-HS alt. Tharp, M. One of the most influential attempts to examine and affect the use of animals in research can be traced back to, with the publication of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . William Russell and Rex Burch published this seminal book in response to marked growth in medical and veterinary research and the concomitant increase in the numbers of animals used. Despite the attention brought to this issue by Russell and Burch, the number of animals used in research and testing has continued to increase. Recent estimates suggest that at least million animals are used each year worldwide .
However, this is likely an underestimate, and it is impossible to accurately quantify the number of animals used in or for experimentation. Full reporting of all animal use is not required or made public in most countries. Nevertheless, based on available information, it is clear that the number of animals used in research has not significantly declined over the past several decades. In addition, serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of animal testing and research in predicting anticipated outcomes  — .
This two-day symposium aimed to advance the study of the ethical and scientific issues surrounding the use of animals in testing and research, with particular emphasis on the adequacy of current protections and the promise and challenges of developing alternatives to the use of animals in basic research, pharmaceutical research and development, and regulatory toxicology. Speakers who contributed to the conference reviewed and contributed new knowledge regarding the cognitive and affective capabilities of animals, revealed through ethology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related disciplines.
Speakers also explored the dimensions of harm associated with animal research, touching on the ethical implications regarding the use of animals in research. Finally, several contributors presented the latest scientific advances in developing alternatives to the use of animals in pharmaceutical research and development and regulatory toxicity testing. This Collection combines some papers that were written following this conference with an aim to highlight relevant progress and research. This Overview provides a brief summary of the ethical and scientific considerations regarding the use of animals in research and testing, some of which are highlighted in the accompanying Collection.
Apprehension around burgeoning medical research in the late s and the first half of the 20 th century sparked concerns over the use of humans and animals in research  , . Suspicions around the use of humans were deepened with the revelation of several exploitive research projects, including a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime during World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis study. These abuses served as the impetus for the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and the resulting Belmont Report  — .
Today, these guidelines provide a platform for the protection of human research subjects, including the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice, as well as special protections for vulnerable populations. Laws to protect animals in research have also been established. The British Parliament passed the first set of protections for animals in , with the Cruelty to Animals Act . Approximately ninety years later, the U. Subsequent national and international laws and guidelines have provided basic protections, but there are some significant inconsistencies among current regulations . For example, the U. In contrast, certain dogs and cats have received special attention and protections.
Whereas the U. Animal Welfare Act excludes birds, rats and mice, the U. While strides have been made in the protection of both human and animal research subjects, the nature of these protections is markedly different. Human research protections emphasize specific principles aimed at protecting the interests of individuals and populations, sometimes to the detriment of the scientific question. This differs significantly from animal research guidelines, where the importance of the scientific question being researched commonly takes precedence over the interests of individual animals.
Although scientists and ethicists have published numerous articles relevant to the ethics of animal research, current animal research guidelines do not articulate the rationale for the central differences between human and animal research guidelines. Currently, the majority of guidelines operate on the presumption that animal research should proceed based on broad, perceived benefits to humans. These guidelines are generally permissive of animal research independent of the costs to the individual animal as long as benefits seem achievable. The concept of costs to individual animals can be further examined through the growing body of research on animal emotion and cognition. Studies published in the last few decades have dramatically increased our understanding of animal sentience, suggesting that animals' potential for experiencing harm is greater than has been appreciated and that current protections need to be reconsidered.
It is now widely acknowledged by scientists and ethicists that animals can experience pain and distress  — . Potential causes of harm include invasive procedures, disease, and deprivation of basic physiological needs. Other sources of harm for many animals include social deprivation and loss of the ability to fulfill natural behaviors, among other factors. Numerous studies have demonstrated that, even in response to gentle handling, animals can show marked changes in physiological and hormonal markers of stress .
Although pain and suffering are subjective experiences, studies from multiple disciplines provide objective evidence of animals' abilities to experience pain. Animals demonstrate coordinated responses to pain and many emotional states that are similar to those exhibited by humans  , . Animals share genetic, neuroanatomical, and physiological similarities with humans, and many animals express pain in ways similar to humans. Animals also share similarities with humans in genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors for psychopathology  , .
For example, fear operates in a less organized subcortical neural circuit than pain, and it has been described in a wide variety of species . More complex markers of psychological distress have also been described in animals. Varying forms of depression have been repeatedly reported in animals, including nonhuman primates, dogs, pigs, cats, birds and rodents, among others  — . Anxiety disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, have been described in animals including chimpanzees and elephants  ,  , .
In addition to the capacity to experience physical and psychological pain or distress, animals also display many language-like abilities, complex problem-solving skills, tool related cognition and pleasure-seeking, with empathy and self-awareness also suggested by some research. Play behavior, an indicator of pleasure, is widespread in mammals, and has also been described in birds  , . Behavior suggestive of play has been observed in other taxa, including reptiles, fishes and cephalopods . Self-awareness, assessed through mirror self-recognition, has been reported for chimpanzees and other great apes, magpies, and some cetaceans. More recent studies have shown that crows are capable of creating and using tools that require access to episodic-like memory formation and retrieval .
These findings suggest that crows and related species display evidence of causal reasoning, flexible learning strategies, imagination and prospection, similar to findings in great apes. These findings also challenge our assumptions about species similarities and differences and their relevance in solving ethical dilemmas regarding the use of animals in research. In the last decade, concerns have mounted about how relevant animal experiments are to human health outcomes.
Several papers have examined the concordance between animal and human data, demonstrating that findings in animals were not reliably replicated in human clinical research  — . Recent systematic reviews of treatments for various clinical conditions demonstrated that animal studies have been poorly predictive of human outcomes in the fields of neurology and vascular disease, among others  , . These reviews have raised questions about whether human diseases inflicted upon animals sufficiently mimic the disease processes and treatment responses seen in humans.
The value of animal use for predicting human outcomes has also been questioned in the regulatory toxicology field, which relies on a codified set of highly standardized animal experiments for assessing various types of toxicity. Despite serious shortcomings for many of these assays, most of which are 50 to 60 years old, the field has been slow to adopt newer methods. The year marked a turning point in the toxicology field, with publication of a landmark report by the U. National Research Council NRC , highlighting the need to embrace in vitro and computational methods in order to obtain data that more accurately predicts toxic effects in humans.
Environmental Protection Agency, partially due to the recognition of weaknesses in existing approaches to toxicity testing . The NRC vision calls for a shift away from animal use in chemical testing toward computational models and high-throughput and high-content in vitro methods. The report emphasized that these methods can provide more predictive data, more quickly and affordably than traditional in vivo methods.
Subsequently published articles address the implementation of this vision for improving the current system of chemical testing and assessment  , . While a sea change is underway in regulatory toxicology, there has been much less dialogue surrounding the replacement of animals in research, despite the fact that far more animals are used in basic and applied research than in regulatory toxicology. The use of animals in research is inherently more difficult to approach systematically because research questions are much more diverse and less proscribed than in regulatory toxicology . Because researchers often use very specialized assays and systems to address their hypotheses, replacement of animals in this area is a more individualized endeavour.
Researchers and oversight boards have to evaluate the relevance of the research question and whether the tools of modern molecular and cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, and computational biology can be used in lieu of animals. While none of these tools on their own are capable of replicating a whole organism, they do provide a mechanistic understanding of molecular events. It is important for researchers and reviewers to assess differences in the clinical presentation and manifestation of diseases among species, as well as anatomical, physiological, and genetic differences that could impact the transferability of findings.
Another relevant consideration is how well animal data can mirror relevant epigenetic effects and human genetic variability. Examples of existing and promising non-animal methods have been reviewed recently by Langley and colleagues, who highlighted advances in fields including orthodontics, neurology, immunology, infectious diseases, pulmonology, endocrine and metabolism, cardiology, and obstetrics .
Many researchers have also begun to rely solely on human data and cell and tissue assays to address large areas of therapeutic research and development. In the area of vaccine testing and development, a surrogate in-vitro human immune system has been developed to help predict an individual's immune response to a particular drug or vaccine  , . This system includes a blood-donor base of hundreds of individuals from diverse populations and offers many benefits, including predictive high-throughput in vitro immunology to assess novel drug and vaccine candidates, measurement of immune responses in diverse human populations, faster cycle time for discovery, better selection of drug candidates for clinical evaluation, and reductions in the time and costs to bring drugs and vaccines to the market.
In the case of vaccines, this system can be used at every stage, including in vitro disease models, antigen selection and adjuvant effects, safety testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and potency assays. When compared with data from animal experiments, this system has produced more accurate pre-clinical data. The examples above illustrate how innovative applications of technology can generate data more meaningful to humans, and reduce or replace animal use, but advances in medicine may also require novel approaches to setting research priorities. The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, which focuses on eradicating breast cancer, has challenged research scientists to move from animal research to breast cancer prevention research involving women.
If researchers could better understand the factors that increase the risk for breast cancer, as well as methods for effective prevention, fewer women would require treatment for breast cancer. Whereas animal research is largely investigator-initiated, this model tries to address the questions that are central to the care of women at risk for or affected by breast cancer. This approach has facilitated the recruitment of women for studies including a national project funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Environmental Health to examine how environment and genes affect breast cancer risk.
This study, which began in , could not have been accomplished with animal research . Similarly, any approach that emphasizes evidence-based prevention would provide benefits to both animals and humans. Resource limitations might require a strategic approach that emphasizes diseases with the greatest public health threats, which increasingly fall within the scope of preventable diseases. It is clear that there have been many scientific and ethical advances since the first publication of Russell and Burch's book. However, some in the scientific community are beginning to question how well data from animals translates into germane knowledge and treatment of human conditions. Efforts to objectively evaluate the value of animal research for understanding and treating human disease are particularly relevant in the modern era, considering the availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies to address research questions .The tips given were helpful for Standardized Testing Research Paper to Standardized Testing Research Paper with my research paper writing assignment. She describes our youth as "assembly line kids on an assembly line model," meaning the use of Standardized Testing Research Paper standardized test as a part Standardized Testing Research Paper a one-size-fits-all Standardized Testing Research Paper model. Example of psychotherapy case My Antonia Landscape Analysis write Standardized Testing Research Paper methodology, a 5 paragraph persuasive essay. Lockwood Standardized Testing Research Paper Kata Mihaly.