In their introductory text, editors Dragon (psychology, Cornell College, Iowa) and Duck (communications, U. of Iowa) take those new to social science research by the hand and lead them gently but inexorably through the processes, methods, and tools of scientific inquiry into the nature of human relationships. The volume's readings explore the questions that researchers have asked about relationships and the way they've tackled the questions; each chapter introduces more terms and approaches. The studies look at relationship issues including attraction, love, sexuality, relationship development, social power, relational maintenance, jealousy, conflict and disturbance, loneliness, social networks, and cyber-relationships.

PURPOSE. To develop a NOC label for the concept of personal autonomy.

METHODS. Using a focus group approach, a NOC label, definition, and indicators were developed for personal autonomy. Using a concept analysis method, the NOC Psychological/Cognitive Focus Group constructed a conceptual definition of personal autonomy and created a list of indicators. An extensive review of nursing, psychology, ethics, and philosophy literature from 1988 to 2001 was conducted using approximately 30 empirically based and theoretical sources. The focus group identified pertinent data from the literature and clustered the data into the predetermined categories of conceptual definition and indicators, giving careful attention to the rules of development for outcome definitions and indicators.


FINDINGS. The label, definitions, and list of indicators were conceptualized at several levels. The definition and indicators were refined into a conceptually and clinically coherent outcome. Personal autonomy is defined as "the ability of a competent individual to govern one's own life and make choices based on the information available."

The indicators are

* Demonstrates cognitive ability to make an informed decision.

* Is able to receive a thorough disclosure of pertinent information about alternative treatments for condition.

* Comprehends the information received in thorough disclosure of pertinent information about alternative treatments for condition.

* Comprehends the risks versus benefits of alternative treatments
Advertisement

* Makes choice from alternatives available.

* Expresses satisfaction in choice made.

* Expresses noninterference with decision-making process by family.

* Expresses noninterference with decision-making process by friends.

* Expresses noninterference with decision-making process by healthcare providers.

* Expresses noninterference with decision-making process by (other).

* Makes decisions free from undue pressure.

DISCUSSION. Nurses are educated to value and protect clients' rights to make their own decisions in healthcare matters. Informed consent is an essential value of the profession, but the concept of clients' competence to receive the information, weigh all options, and make a choice free from undue pressure is often minimized or overlooked. Not only must nurses advocate for clients' right to make decisions, they must be vigilant in ensuring that patients are cognitively able to make those decisions.

One school of thought argues that true autonomy is not possible, given that individuals exist within relationships: People cannot make decisions without pressure from the people in those relationships. The NOC Psychological/Cognitive Focus Group suggests that while individuals may consider the wishes of friends, family, and healthcare providers, the person retains the right to make the decision that best suits him/herself. Nurses are in a unique position to offer support to individuals as they attempt to balance the information about treatment options and the suggestions/demands of others.

CONCLUSIONS. Autonomy is not a simple concept. It challenges nurses to view individuals within the context of relationships and with consideration of their cognitive abilities. Use of NOC outcome indicators can facilitate an improved awareness of the facets of autonomy. Testing the indicators in clinical practice will be necessary to confirm this conclusion.

THE Bureau of Economic Analysis has been working on a research and development (R&D) satellite account since 2004 to help economists gain a better understanding of R&D activity and its effect on economic growth. This article introduces the 2006 satellite account, which provides preliminary estimates of R&D investment and the impact of R&D investment on such measures as gross domestic product (GDP), investment, and saving.


The full 2006 satellite account, released in September and accessible via , modifies the accounting conventions used in the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in order to explore the impact of "capitalizing" R&D--that is, treating R&D spending as an investment rather than as an expense. The new account does not affect the official measure of GDP. Rather, the satellite account provides a framework to explore new methodologies and provide regularly updated estimates of R&D in preparation for future incorporation into the input-output (I-O) accounts and the NIPAs.

The R&D satellite account was developed in partnership with the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal agency that is responsible for producing R&D-related statistics for the United States. NSF provided funding for the R&D satellite account project, and its staff reviewed account methodologies and results. Using R&D expenditure data from the NSF, BEA developed estimates of R&D investment, the R&D, and the resulting macroeconomic effects for 1959-2002. (1) Revised estimates are scheduled to be released in September 2007.


The 2006 account measures the direct effect of R&D investment on final demand only; it does not include spillover effects. Spillovers--the economic benefits of R&D available to entities that did not pay to create the R&D--are not included in the national accounts framework because the national accounts value assets at their market value. This treatment is consistent with the treatment of other types of spillovers in the national accounts.

The new account makes clear that treating R&D as an investment would have a substantial impact on GDP and other measures. Highlights from the new satellite account include the following:

* Current-dollar investment in R&D totaled $276.5 billion in 2002.

* Recognizing R&D as investment would increase the level of current-dollar GDP by an average 21/2 percent per year in 1959-2002 (chart 1). (2) * Businesses' investment in commercial and all other types of buildings would account for just over 2 percent

of real GDP growth in 1995-2002. * R&D investment and the income flows arising from accumulated R&D capital would account for about 4 1/2 percent of real GDP growth in 1959-2002. In 1995-2002, R&D investment would account for about 6 1/2 percent of growth.

* R&D investment would increase current-dollar gross private domestic investment in 2002 more than 11 percent, or $178 billion. The national saving rate in 2002 would be 16 percent, instead of 14 percent.

* Business investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP surpassed government investment as a percentage of GDP in 1981.

* Business investment accounted for just under 2 percent of current-dollar GDP in 2000, compared with just over 1 percent in 1960.

[GRAPHIC 1 OMITTED]

The release of the satellite account in September marks another step in BEA's efforts to adapt its measures of economic activity to structural changes in the economy (see the box "Previous NIPA Improvements Related to R&D"), particularly in the field of intangible assets. BEA plans several additional enhancements to the R&D satellite account in the near future: An improved treatment of the international aspects of R&D, improved measures of prices for R&D, and new industry-based estimates of R&D. Current plans, subject to available funding, call for the incorporation of R&D into the I-O accounts in 2012 and into the NIPAs in 2013.

The 2006 satellite account builds on the earlier work at BEA. (3) In 1994, BEA introduced the elements needed to translate R&D expenditures into investment, deflate investment, and develop R&D stock measures. In 2005, BEA went a step further and presented the general structure of the account along with rough estimates of the impact on GDP, gross domestic income (GDI), and national saving. The 2006 satellite account extends these previous efforts by exploring alternative scenarios that take into account the notable characteristics of R&D activity and by developing a more complete national accounts framework to estimate R&D activity.

In addition, BEA now recognizes the funder of R&D as the owner of R&D, that is, the entity that benefits from the activity; earlier versions focused on the performer of R&D. The change stems from the need to assign income flows to the economic sectors included in the national economic accounts. Assigning ownership from performer data is difficult because the performer is not necessarily the owner. Often, the original recipient of R&D funds may subcontract to others.

Leading Beyond Excellence: Discover How to Achieve Leadership Significance and Your Personal Dreams With 7 Practical Steps by Lisa Williams, Ph.D., Executive Publishers International, February 2005 $24.95, ISBN: 0-9726075-9-5

American society has developed a short attention span in an evergrowing, fast-paced world. Taking advantage of this attention span, Williams offers a cutting-edge leadership program and a self-discovery process.

Unfortunately, the attempt doesn't work. Her intentions are very clear, but the reader is lost after taking the "Spiral of Influence Survey" It is part of Williams's theory that the process of leading beyond excellence is best represented by a spiral because a person's inner development is a continuing process.


Trying to determine how you rate from the survey is confusing. The book relies too heavily on the survey to help the reader determine which stage they need developed, but it does not provide enough explanation of why the stages exist or what recourse can be taken. Not confusing are the weekly words of wisdom and the action steps in the book.

Developing Future Animal Science Industry Leaders through the Development of Personal Qualities, Leadership Skills, Communication Skills and Animal Science Technical Components

Hilary K. Maricle, Susan M, Fritz and Linda D. Moody

Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

PO Box 830709

Lincoln, NE 68583-0709



Developing leaders in the animal science industry encompasses many areas (e.g. animal science technical skills, personal qualities, communication skills, and leadership skills). This study identified key competencies in four areas needed in the next five years by animal science graduates. Researchers used a modified Delphi technique to ascertain: 1) importance and priority; 2) proficiency level; and 3) agreement of respondents with the proficiency level. Forty-four of the 24 faculty and 20 industry experts rated the importance and priority of 193 competencies. Seventy-one competencies were identified as highly important and of critical priority. In the next round, experts rated the proficiency levels of the competencies, and finally, reported their agreement with the group ratings. Comparisons were made between post-secondary and industry responses in each of the rounds, as well as comparisons of responses by participant age and educational level. In total, personal qualities, communication skills and leadership skills were determined by the experts to be of higher importance and priority than animal science technical skills. Results of the study will be used as the basis of future animal science curriculum changes.