Search results for 'John G. Adair' (try it on Scholar)

6 found
Sort by:
  1. John G. Adair & Barry Spinner (1981). Subjects' Access to Cognitive Processes: Demand Characteristics and Verbal Report. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 11 (1):31–52.score: 870.0
  2. John G. Adair (1978). The Combined Probabilities of 345 Studies: Only Half the Story? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (3):386.score: 870.0
  3. Christopher Adair-Toteff (1997). Gottesgeburt Und Selbstbewubtsein. Denken der Einheit Bei Meister Eckhart Und G. W. F. Hegel. The Owl of Minerva 29 (1):69-71.score: 36.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Hugh LaFollette (1994). Mandatory Drug Testing. In S. Luper-Foy C. Brown (ed.), Drugs, Morality, and the Law. Garland.score: 24.0
    By some estimates one-third of American corporations now require their employees to be tested for drug u se. The se requ iremen ts are com patible with general employment law while prom oting the public's in terest in figh ting drug use. Mo reover , the Unite d State s Supreme Court has ruled that drug tes ting prog rams a re cons titutionally p ermiss ible within both the public and the private sectors. It appears m andatory drug tes (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Christopher Adair-Toteff, Howard Adelman, Rolf Ahlers, James W. Allard, Kevin Anderson, Jami Anderson, John J. Ansbro, Elizabeth Apetz & Kostas Bagakis (1997). The Hegel Society of America: Roster. The Owl of Minerva 29 (1).score: 24.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Charles J. Kowalski, Jan L. Bernheim, Nancy Adair Birk & Peter Theuns (2012). Felicitometric Hermeneutics: Interpreting Quality of Life Measurements. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (3):207-220.score: 12.0
    The use of quality of life (QOL) outcomes in clinical trials is increasing as a number of practical, ethical, methodological, and regulatory reasons for their use have become apparent. It is important, then, that QOL measurements and differences between QOL scores be readily interpretable. We study interpretation in two contexts: when determining QOL and when basing decisions on QOL differences. We consider both clinical situations involving individual patients and research contexts, e.g., randomized clinical trials, involving groups of patients. We note (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation