Search

BACKGROUND: In clinical genetics, establishing an accurate nosology requires analysis of variations in both aetiology and the resulting phenotypes. At the phenotypic level, recognising typical facial gestalts has long supported clinical and molecular diagnosis; however, the objective analysis of facial phenotypic variation remains underdeveloped. In this work, we propose exploratory strategies for assessing facial phenotypic variation within and among clinical and molecular disease entities and deploy these techniques on cross-sectional samples of four RASopathies: Costello syndrome (CS), Noonan syndrome (NS), cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome (CFC) and neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). METHODS: From three-dimensional dense surface scans, we model the typical phenotypes of the four RASopathies as average facial signatures and assess individual variation in terms of direction (what parts of the face are affected and in what ways) and severity of the facial effects. We also derive a metric of phenotypic agreement between the syndromes and a metric of differences in severity along similar phenotypes. RESULTS: CFC shows a relatively consistent facial phenotype in terms of both direction and severity that is similar to CS and NS, consistent with the known difficulty in discriminating CFC from NS based on the face. CS shows a consistent directional phenotype that varies in severity. Although NF1 is highly variable, on average, it shows a similar phenotype to CS. CONCLUSIONS: We established an approach that can be used in the future to quantify variations in facial phenotypes between and within clinical and molecular diagnoses to objectively define and support clinical nosologies.

In 2004, Robert Stake published a provocative article that asked: "How Far Dare an Evaluator Go Toward Saving the World?" This question raises the issue of what role evaluators' values play in the conduct of evaluations. Following review of Stake's premises, I present value statements from a diverse group of 40 evaluators working with philanthropic foundations. The results update and revise Stake's list of "six advocacies common in evaluation." The findings capture changes in evaluation language and substantive concerns over the last 15 years regarding evaluators' values and engagement. The conclusion affirms Stake's original overarching principle. In closing, I offer an additional concern toward saving the world not on Stake's list or that of the evaluators sampled: global sustainability and environmental justice in the face of the global pandemic and climate emergency. This process of inquiry generated a facilitation tool for use by evaluators, presented here, to support reflective practice about evaluators' values.

Fundamental systems transformations are needed to address the global emergency brought on by climate change and related global trends, including the COVID-19 pandemic, which, together, pose existential threats to the future of humanity. "Transformation" has become the clarion call on the global stage. Evaluating transformation requires criteria. The revised Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance Committee criteria are adequate for business as usual summative and accountability evaluations but are inadequate for addressing major systems transformations. Six criteria for evaluating transformations are offered, discussed, and illustrated by applying them to the pandemic and the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. The suggested criteria illustrate possibilities. The criteria for judging any intervention should be developed in the context of and aligned with the purpose of a specific evaluation and information needs of primary intended users. This article concludes that "the greatest danger for evaluators in times of turbulence is not the turbulence--it is to act with yesterday's criteria."

Immature raptors often travel long distances and move nomadically front the time they leave their natal area to the time they are recruited into the breeding population. Emphasis on identifying the nesting and winter habitat of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has overshadowed the need to understand the habitat and spatial use of young eagles prior to reaching maturity. We used satellite telemetry to track the movements of immature Bald Eagles hatched in western Kentucky during 2010-2016. We analyzed movement data to identify high-use areas for eagles in their first and second years during warm and cool periods. Five out of seven eagles migrated north to the Great Lakes region during their first year. Using Brownian Bridge Movement Modelling, we identified 47 noncontiguous high-use areas during the warm period and 67 during the cool period. Public lands comprised 17% of warm period high-use areas and 43% of cool period high-use areas. High-use areas were located in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee, and were often near federally-owned dams, rivers with sandbars, or areas with abundant waterfowl. Our small sample of tracked eagles correctly identified known Bald Eagle concentration areas within the study area; thus, we infer that previously unrecognized high-use areas identified bv this study are likely to be concentration areas important to the larger population. We further suggest remote sensing data, even in limited datasets, as an efficient way to identify Bald Eagle concentration areas., INTRODUCTION Immature raptors often travel long distances from the time of natal dispersal to the time they become part of the nesting population (Clark et al., 2004). The emphasis of [...]

Marvin Alkin and Jean King published three AJE articles on evaluation use over four years, a coherent and comprehensive series covering the historical development of evaluation use, definitions and factors associated with use and misuse, and theories of evaluation use and influence, concluding with assessment of the first 50 years of use research. They conclude with recommendations for future theory development and research on evaluation. I draw a different set of conclusions and pathway forward. Where they seek a common universal operational definition of evaluation use, I propose treating use as a thick sensitizing concept that invites diversity of context-specific meanings. Where they find evaluation use theory inadequate, I argue that it is sufficient for its purpose. Where they seek more development of evaluation-specific utilization theory, I propose drawing on more established and validated theories from social sciences to explain and illuminate evaluation use as occurring in complex dynamic systems.

In the 2015 original article, the authors argue that philanthropic endeavors should be undergirded by a theory of philanthropy that describes and explains how and why a particular foundation engages in philanthropy, and they provide details about how to conceptualize a theory of philanthropy. In the 2024 prologue, Patton describes how different kinds of initiatives need different theory--practice frameworks. A theory of change hypothesizes how a specific intervention (grant, project, or program) is expected to achieve desired impacts. A theory of philanthropy, in contrast, articulates a foundation's role in supporting specific kinds of theories of change. The theory of philanthropy framework led to two further theory--practice differentiations: a theory of philanthropic alliance, which explains and hypothesizes how several foundations working together can have greater collective impact than they could working separately, and distinguishing a theory of transformation from a theory of change. A theory of transformation incorporates and integrates multiple theories of change with diverse change agents operating at many levels that, knitted together, explain how major systems transformation can occur. What these various approaches to theory conceptualization have in common is a willingness to engage in serious and deep intellectual analysis of how change occurs, doing so to inform strategy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culturally and politically science is under attack. The core consequence of perceiving and asserting evaluation as science is that it enhances our credibility and effectiveness in supporting the importance of science in our world and brings us together with other scientists to make common cause in supporting and advocating for science. Other consequences include communicating our role more clearly and credibly to those who value science. Viewing evaluation as science may affect how we are viewed, treated, and positioned in academia, government, and by funders and users of evaluation. The ramifications of evaluation science for evaluation's status as a profession, branch of applied social science, discipline, and transdiscipline are reviewed. The conclusion offers implications, caveats, and cautions regarding the identity and practice of evaluation science.

Fidelity concerns the extent to which a specific evaluation sufficiently incorporates the core characteristics of the overall approach to justify labeling that evaluation by its designated name. Fidelity has traditionally meant implementing a model in exactly the same way each time following the prescribed steps and procedures. The essential principles of developmental evaluation (DE), in contrast, provide high-inference sensitizing guidance that must be interpreted and applied contextually. In lieu of operationalizing DE fidelity criteria, I suggest addressing the "degree of manifest sensitivity" to essential principles. Principles as sensitizing concepts replace operational rules. This means that sensitivity to essential DE principles should be explicitly and contextually manifest in both processes and outcomes, in both design and use of findings. Eight essential principles of DE are identified and explained. Finally, 10 threats to evaluation model fidelity and/or degree of manifest sensitivity are identified with ways to mitigate those threats.

Our understanding of programs is enhanced when trained, skilled, and observant evaluators go "into the field"--the real world where programs are conducted--paying attention to what's going on, systematically documenting what they see, and reporting what they learn. The article opens by presenting and illustrating twelve reasons for building fieldwork into evaluation designs. While in-depth fieldwork is the evaluation ideal, the evaluation reality is that brief site visits are the more common design. The article identifies systematic weaknesses in how site visits are commissioned and conducted, and proposes standards for improving quality and use.