1e:T447,For the confirmatory factor model a series of inequalities is given with respect to the mean square error (MSE) of three main factor score predictors. The eigenvalues of these MSE matrices are a monotonic function of the eigenvalues of the matrix Γ _p = Φ ^1/2 Λ _p 'Ψ _p^-1 Λ _p Φ ^1/2. This matrix increases with the number of observable variables p. A necessary and sufficient condition for mean square convergence of predictors is divergence of the smallest eigenvalue of Γ _p or, equivalently, divergence of signal-to-noise (Schneeweiss & Mathes, 1995). The same condition is necessary and sufficient for convergence to zero of the positive definite MSE differences of factor predictors, convergence to zero of the distance between factor predictors, and convergence to the unit value of the relative efficiencies of predictors. Various illustrations and examples of the convergence are given as well as explicit recommendations on the problem of choosing between the three main factor score predictors.1f:T4e6,A pair of consensus development conferences held in the United States and in Sweden presented an unusual opportunity for a cross-cultural study of technology transfer The two conferences were based on the same topic and the same set ofprocedures, providing a chance to test the replicability of the concept of the consensus development conference in different cultures with different health care systems. The purpose of the study was to compare the two experiences, addressing the following questions (I) Can the consensus development process operate across cultural differences and still yield similar results ? (2) Do differences in the health payment system effect the consensus development process ? The study concluded that the consensus development conference is an effective technology transfer procedure both in the United States and in Sweden. The process was effective regardless of differences in language, culture, and health care delivery systems Conclusions reached by consensus development panels regarding the safety and efficacy of the technology were similar Inclusion of issues of need and cost at the Swedish conference expanded the agenda beyond that of the U S conference, however the consensus development process remained the same20:T54b,Surgeons, gastroenterologists, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, nutritionists, and other health care professionals, as well as members of the public convened to address nonsurgical treatments for severe obesity, surgical treatments for severe obesity, and criteria for selection, the efficacy, and risks of surgical treatments for severe obesity, and the need for future research on and epidemiologic evaluation of these therapies. The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel recommended that patients seeking therapy for severe obesity for the first time should be considered for treatment in a nonsurgical program that integrates a dietary regimen, appropriate exercise, behavior modification, and psychological support; that gastric restrictive or bypass procedures could be considered for well-informed and motivated patients in whom the operative risks were acceptable; that patients who are candidates for surgical procedures should be selected carefully after evaluation by a multidisciplinary team with medical, surgical, psychiatric, and nutritional expertise; that surgery be done by a surgeon who has substantial experience in the particular procedure and who works in a clinical setting with adequate support for all aspects of management and assessment; and that patients undergo lifelong medical surveillance after surgery.

	Year	Citations

References