FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4387493322> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4387493322 endingPage "5" @default.
• W4387493322 startingPage "1" @default.
• W4387493322 abstract "You have accessSIG 4 Fluency and Fluency DisordersIntroduction10 Oct 2023Making the Case for Case Studies John A. Tetnowski, Charles D. Hughes, and Jennifer T. Tetnowski John A. Tetnowski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6363-6116 Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Google Scholar More articles by this author , Charles D. Hughes Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond Google Scholar More articles by this author and Jennifer T. Tetnowski https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4897-451X Oklahoma Health Sciences University, Oklahoma City Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-23-00121 SectionsAboutAbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Many humans learn through inductive (rather than deductive) reasoning and are more equipped to learn from a “story” or a “case.” The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, n.d.) has identified “case-based learning scenarios,” that is, case studies and real-life scenarios to improve the transfer of learning into practice. In this type of learning, clinicians can examine/evaluate, analyze, and discuss/apply problems related to the case. These are all higher levels of learning based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning (Bloom, 1956). Bloom's taxonomy is a hierarchical model that classifies learning into levels of complexity. Furthermore, the inductive process used in case studies promotes a learner's ability to answer open-ended questions (Nilson, 2016), such as those proposed in the clinical practice of speech-language pathology. For these reasons, and many more, we introduce this forum of SIG 4 Perspectives regarding “case studies” as a method of learning clinical principles. The purpose of this introduction is not to simply introduce the case studies that follow, but to prepare the reader for what they may learn and how important these cases can be in their continuing education. Case studies have been used as a valuable tool for learning in areas as diverse as medicine and business. Made famous by the Harvard Business School, case studies represent a large portion of the classroom instruction methods that are employed. Kamat (2013) estimated that as much as 80% of the curriculum at Harvard Business School is based on case studies. In medicine, Case Western Reserve Medical School began using case studies as an integral part of their learning in the 1950s, and this model has been adopted by many other top medical schools (Dubin, 2016). Dubin further states that the case study method can enhance critical thinking. Despite the wide use of case studies as a method of learning in top business schools and medical schools, there appears to be a lack of respect for, or a reluctance to use, case studies in other fields (Concato, 2013; Flyvberg, 2006). According to Hartman (2017), “EBP has become the hegemonic model for how the social work community has decided its practitioners ought to understand and utilize research for practice” (p. 228). In other words, by adopting evidence-based practice (EBP) as a guiding framework for treatment, practitioners are also implicitly valuing, or being instructed to value, experimental design research over case-study owing to the EBP's orientation toward the Oxford University Centre for Evidence-Based Practice (2009) classification. This orientation influences the education of preservice learners as they are conditioned to orient toward evidence-based practice. As we look for effective means of learning, rote learning has been shown to be ineffective for meeting the needs of an advanced society or a field as complex as speech-language pathology (Abdelshiheed et al., 2023). Developed in the 1950s, Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning is a method that ranks levels of learning (Bloom, 1956). The highest levels in this taxonomy include creating, evaluating, and analyzing, while the lowest level is remembering. If the objective of journals, textbooks, and other tools for learning is a higher level of synthesis, then we must match the level of learning to the expected outcomes. Critical thinking and active learning are two methods that many experts agree can enhance higher levels of learning. Case studies can provide this avenue for learning. A search on ChatGPT revealed that “case studies” is the among the top three strategies to promote active learning. In terms of teaching “critical thinking,” ChatGPT lists “case studies” as second. The AI-generated output is consistent with the findings of Bezanilla et al. (2019) as well as best practices in clinical education and supervision advanced by ASHA (n.d.). Clearly, the use of case studies can enhance deeper thinking and better understanding of the strategies that speech-language pathologists use in their daily practice. Traditional Ranking of Case Studies It is unfortunate that case studies do not carry as much “prestige” in the field of communication disorders and sciences. In a 2004 ASHA publication, case studies are not even mentioned in a paper dedicated to levels of evidence (Robey, 2004). In the Oxford University Centre for Evidence-Based Practice (2009), the highest levels of evidence are awarded to systematic reviews and randomized control studies (rated 1 and 2 on the 5-point scale), while case studies and expert opinion are awarded the lowest levels of evidence (rated 4 and 5 on the 5-point scale). This type of classification has been used widely by ASHA, while it may not be the best-suited method for learning by a large portion of its membership. Almost 90% of ASHA's 199,000 speech-language pathologists and 44,000 speech-language pathology assistants (Zippia, n.d.) work as clinicians in schools or health-care facilities. Additionally, there are 11,400 members of the National Student Speech Language Hearing Association (NSSHLA, n.d.). We need to meet the needs of the majority of our membership who work primarily in clinical care. Case studies can serve as an effective method from which these clinicians can learn effectively. What Is a Case Study and Why Are They Misunderstood? According to Creswell (2014), a case study is an in-depth study of a bounded system (individual, activity, event, or process). It is based on extensive data collection. Further, case study is a research approach that can accomplish the transmission of information based on goals that can generate in-depth knowledge through a multifaceted understanding of complex issues in real-life contexts (Crowe et al., 2011). This “real-life” concept can be of the utmost importance to practicing clinicians. Beyond this real-life understanding, Duchan (2014) describes case studies as being like nouns; that is, they can describe a person a place, or a thing. Common misperceptions include that case studies describe only a person (for example, a teen who stutters); however, a case study can also describe a place (such as a classroom, or a speech and language clinic) or a thing (such as a treatment, an event, or a piece of technology). In addition, case studies are based on extensive data-collection methods that can provide a thorough description of complex issues. Treating persons with communication disorders indeed requires a thorough understanding of complex phenomena. The act of speech, or the transmission of language, is highly complex and therefore difficult to operationalize into a single variable or two. Case studies allow for the deeper and in-depth analysis required to better understand and treat human communication. Beyond the aforementioned misconception of case studies, another misunderstanding arises from the historically prevailing theoretical orientation and, thus, requires a more thorough explanation. As mentioned previously, case studies receive low ratings in most databases that rank the importance of case studies, such as the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2001, 2009). One of the reasons for the lower rating may be within the terminology itself: evidence-based medicine. Medicine has long been studied in the tradition of the medical model that relies on a cure or a “fixing” of a disorder or difference. This misunderstanding is further amplified by the reliance on only one type of data that garners the highest level of evidence, which is experimental or laboratory-controlled data. Observations and quantitative measures are key factors in these experimental studies. Experimental data come from a positivist viewpoint that stresses data collection in controlled settings where one can test and verify theories (Creswell, 2014). These approaches are well suited to population-based inquiry; however, some researchers and clinicians do not seek data from controlled settings. They want to know how people react in naturalistic settings. Many experimental methodologies leave little room for evaluating complex phenomena in naturalistic settings or for analysis and interpretations of the subject being studied (or from the person collecting the data). Many clinicians need these types of data to evaluate and create treatment methods that work with real human beings in natural settings. We may want to consider a concept as complex and complicated as stuttering from a model that examines how society views stuttering and the barriers to navigating the world while stuttering. If this is the case, a social model may be superior for promoting our understanding. Social Models of Intervention Necessitate Case Study Research Social models of intervention were derived from the disability rights movement and offer a viable alternative to the medical model in that they can identify the role that society can have on a person with any type of difference. This requires studying communication in a real-life setting using in-depth analysis, in contrast to reducing human behaviors to one or two quantifiable variables. From this viewpoint, the “disability” associated with a communication disorder like stuttering is not from the “impairment,” but how society around the person who stutters impacts that individual. This evolution in conceptualizing health resulted in the reformulation of health and functioning by the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO, 2001) wherein physical functioning, as “body functions and structures,” is recognized as interacting with “contextual factors” to impact “activities and participation.” How a communication disorder impacts an individual within a society is what we seek to ameliorate in those with communication disorders. These phenomena are not readily studied in laboratory settings but lend themselves to more naturalistic settings. Once again, the goals of the social model are not necessarily to “cure,” but to evaluate and analyze human communication behaviors and create interventions that can address “social implications” and “barriers to success” in real-life settings. This stance has long been adopted by disability rights activists and has worked its way into research in communicative disorders and specifically stuttering (e.g., Constantino, 2018). The case study design fits this paradigm quite well. Case Studies in Communication Disorders and Stuttering Case studies are not new to the field of communication disorders. Important findings developed through case studies are among the most influential studies in this field. Classic case studies in child language developed through these methodologies laid the foundations for grammatical acquisition and pragmatics of language (e.g., Berko, 1958; Dore, 1973). In our field of stuttering, early writings by Wendel Johnson and colleagues (e.g., Tudor, 1939) such as “The Monster Study” used case study methodology to test and define/redefine theories and practice. Van Riper's (1973) four subtypes of stuttering were based on retrospective case studies of his clients. More recently, research methodology has made use of multiple case studies to produce “systematic reviews” to improve the power of single case studies, folding them into more comprehensive findings (Muzra et al., 2019). This systematic review of case histories further verified the positive effects of speech therapy on stuttering, demonstrating that case studies play an important role in stuttering intervention and treatment. As noted earlier, clinicians may prefer case study research for increasing their knowledge and understanding of stuttering. This is not just the trend for clinicians who may prefer practice-based evidence to evidence-based practice (Green & Allegrante, 2020). Practice-based evidence is indeed a viable research option today. But, it is not just clinicians; researchers are also interested in case study research, or patient-oriented research (Concato, 2013). As a matter of point, an earlier study in SIG 4 Perspectives shows 441 citations for a methodological paper on qualitative case studies (Tetnowski, 2015). Clearly, there is interest by both clinicians and researchers in case study methodology. As case studies grow in interest, Yin (2014) has proposed how to clarify the “niche” for case studies. Yin suggests using case studies for (a) comparing case study research to other case study findings, and (b) comparing case study findings to other methodologies used in social sciences. On the first point, we agree and suggest not only comparing to other case studies but to gather case studies in systematic reviews to clarify finding, such as Muzra et al. (2019). As a prototype, we can also use the systematic review of Muzra et al. to compare with experimentally based meta-analysis. In this case, the findings of Muzra et al.'s (2019) systematic review are in complete agreement with the findings of Herder et al.'s (2006) meta-analysis regarding the merit of providing intervention for people who stutter. The literature of many years supports the use of case study research. Summary, Conclusion, and Caveats For most of its history, the field of speech-language pathology has followed a medical model, but more recently the field has seen the value of using social models. Medical models accentuate a “cure” for any disorder or difference while the social model offers a counter narrative. It highlights the way society is structured as disabling, rather than the physical impairment itself (Damico et al., 2021). Disability is experienced when a person is unable to participate fully in society through a mismatch between their body functioning and the environment around them; thus, disability becomes a dynamic process, not an inherent characteristic. The social model provides a mechanism to align the constructs within a society that can facilitate an individual's ability to navigate their lives in real-life settings. New articles by authors like Constantino (e.g., Constantino, 2018) stress the social model and how it fits into the neurodiversity movement. Other articles by Tichenor and colleagues have shown the variability that exists in stuttering that is so difficult to study using only experimental studies (e.g., Tichenor & Yaruss, 2021). Case studies have shown the power to guide research, policy, and practice to improve universal access to communication. In this series, the case study by Singer and Martin (2023) presents with a case of stuttering and a lateral lisp. Singer and Martin explain how the literature might suggest a phonological/language-based approach. However, they document how a more direct, motor-based approach was successful in remediating the lisp, but without placing extra demands on the client which might exacerbate stuttering. A series of five case studies presented by Medina et al. (2023) show the benefits of a “mindfulness” program that had a significant impact on the quality of life for three of the five participants. However, all participants indicated that they would use the mindfulness principles in various aspects of their life moving forward. Finally, Sutkowski et al. (2023) share their findings from three cases that present with word-final disfluencies. The value of these cases is that they address real-world issues without the constraints of laboratory controls that clinicians can examine/evaluate, analyze, and discuss/apply problems related to these cases and apply them to their own clinical practice. Granted, they do not carry the inferential power of large, randomized control studies, but these types of cases do not have the higher incidences required for larger experimental designs. The value of case studies is that they can show you “how” to address problems and allow for dissemination of information that can help in our understanding of stuttering and other fluency disorders. As they stand currently, these case studies can allow the clinician to build upon these findings and examine outcomes with their own clinical cases. In conclusion, one of the stuttering experts that we have all come to admire in his views of how to treat “stuttering” is Walt Manning. Please note that “stuttering” is in quotes, because it is not the behavioral definition of stuttering that we refer to, but the overarching conceptualization of stuttering that Manning refers to in his writings. This view of stuttering includes symptoms, but also includes the inner person, their thoughts, feelings, and agency, as well as their family, their environment, and anything else that interferes with the open and free exchange of ideas. In the introduction to the second edition of his textbook, Manning (2001) cites the British Psychologist Bannister with the quote, “Human beings are historically nonsensical and unfit participants for scientific inquiry.” We would like to amend his quote to read, “Human beings are nonsensical and unfit participants for only one kind of scientific inquiry.” The days of a single experimental paradigm of positivist research are behind us. Case studies are one of the methods that can assist us in understanding stuttering. We hope that this forum encourages you to engage in and appreciate the power of case studies. Enjoy! References Abdelshiheed, M., Maniktala, M., Ju, S., Jain, A., Barnes, T., & Chi, M. (2023). Preparing unprepared students for future learning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11960 Google Scholar American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). Annual demographic and employment data: 2022 member and affiliate profile. https://www.asha.org/siteassets/surveys/2022-member-affiliate-profile.pdf Google Scholar American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Clinical education and supervision [Practice Portal]. Retrieved June 9, 2023, from https://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Clinical-Education-and-Supervision/ Google Scholar Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology.Word, 14, 150–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Bezanilla, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete, M., & Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019). Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher's view.Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, Article 100584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain.In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay. Google Scholar Concato, J. (2013). Study design and “evidence” in patient-oriented research.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 187(11), 1167–1172. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201303-0521OE CrossrefGoogle Scholar Constantino, C. (2018). What can stutterers learn from the neurodiversity movement?.Seminars in Speech and Language, 39(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667166 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. Google Scholar Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Damico, J. S., Muller, N., & Ball, M. J. (2021). Labeling as a sociocultural process in communicative disorders.In J. S. Damico, N. Muller, & M. J. Ball (Eds.), The handbook of language and speech disorders (2nd ed., pp. 7–32). Wiley Blackwell. Google Scholar Dore, J. (1973). A developmental theory of speech act production.Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 35(8, Series II), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1973.tb01535.x CrossrefGoogle Scholar Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development.Journal of Psycholinguiostic Research, 3(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068169 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Dubin, B. (2016). Innovative curriculum prepares medical students for a lifetime of learning and patient care.Missouri Medicine, 113(3), 170–173. Google Scholar Duchan, J. F. (2014). Case studies and their frameworks: Positivist, interpretive, and emancipatory.In M. J. Ball, N. Muller, & R. L. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in communication disorders (pp. 3–16). Psychology Press. Google Scholar Ellis, C., & Jacobs, M. (2021). The complexity of health disparities: More than just Black–White differences.Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 6(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00199 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research.Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Green, L. W., & Allegrante, J. P. (2020). Practice-based evidence and the need for more diverse methods and sources in epidemiology, public health and health promotion.American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 946–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120960580b CrossrefGoogle Scholar Hartman, E. (2017). The queer utility of narrative case studies for clinical social work research and practice.Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-017-0622-9 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Herder, C., Howard, C., Nye, C., & Vanryckegham, M. (2006). Effectiveness of behavioral stuttering treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 33, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_61 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Kamat, S. (2013, December 3). Case study method: why and how the best business schools use it.MBA Crystal Ball. https://www.mbacrystalball.com/blog/2013/12/03/case-study-in-business-schools/ Google Scholar Manning, W. H. (2001). Clinical decision making in fluency disorders (2nd ed.). Singular. Google Scholar Medina, A. M., Mead, J. S., Comas, K., Perez, G., Prieto, J., & Valencia, I. (2023). Outcomes of a remote mindfulness program for adults who stutter: Five case studies.Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 8(5), 897–912. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-22-00076 Google Scholar Muzra, K. A., Vanryckeghem, M., Nye, C., & Subramanian, A. (2019). Effects of stuttering treatment: A systematic review of single-subject experimental design studies.EBP Briefs, 13(4), 1–15. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/ebp-briefs/EBP_V13A4_1A_FNL.pdf Google Scholar National Student Speech Language Hearing Association. (n.d.). [Home page]. Retrieved on June 9, 2023, from https://www.nsslha.org/ Google Scholar Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar Oxford University Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (2009, March 1). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence (March 2009). https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009 Google Scholar Robey, R. R. (2004). Levels of evidence.The ASHA Leader, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.09072004.5 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Shakespeare, T. (2010). The social model of disability.In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 266–273). Routledge. Google Scholar Singer, C., & Martin, E. (2023). Treating a young child who stutters' lateral lisp: A case study.Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 8(5), 886–896. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-22-00133 Google Scholar Sutkowski, S., Scaler Scott, K., & Kisenwether, J. (2023). Comparative analysis of the temporal aspects of word-final disfluencies, stuttering-like disfluencies, and nonstuttering-like disfluencies.Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 8(5), 913–924. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-22-00209 Google Scholar Tetnowski, J. (2015). Qualitative case study research design.SIG 4 Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 25(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1044/ffd25.1.39 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Tichenor, S. E., & Yaruss, J. S. (2021). Variability of stuttering: Behavior and impact.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00112 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Tudor, M. (1939). An experimental study of the effect of evaluative labeling on speech fluency [Master's thesis, University of Iowa]. Google Scholar Van Riper, C. (1973). The treatment of stuttering. Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health Google Scholar Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE. Google Scholar Zippia. (n.d.). Speech-language assistant demographics and statistics in the US. Retrieved June 9, 2023, from https://www.zippia.com/speech-language-pathology-assistant-jobs/demographics/ Google Scholar Author Notes Disclosure: John A. Tetnowski is the editor for Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, SIG 4. Charles D. Hughes serves on the editorial board of SIG 4 and was the guest editor for this forum. Jennifer T. Tetnowski has declared that no competing financial or nonfinancial interests existed at the time of publication. Correspondence to John A. Tetnowski: [email protected] Editor-in-Chief: Monique T. Mills Publisher Note: This article is part of the Forum: Case Studies in Fluency. Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Newly PublishedePub Ahead of IssuePages: 1-5 HistoryReceived: Jun 1, 2023Revised: Jun 30, 2023Accepted: Jul 12, 2023 Published online: Oct 10, 2023 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2023 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W4387493322 created "2023-10-11" @default.
• W4387493322 creator A5006852647 @default.
• W4387493322 creator A5023579811 @default.
• W4387493322 creator A5078951555 @default.
• W4387493322 date "2023-10-10" @default.
• W4387493322 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W4387493322 title "Making the Case for Case Studies" @default.
• W4387493322 cites W1559528008 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W1572144646 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W1985984521 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2100463117 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2100809218 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2161013171 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2186780112 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2605964639 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2888291029 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2957516427 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W2960690076 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W3093201647 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W3099124743 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W3118907023 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W3123732438 @default.
• W4387493322 cites W4285484546 @default.
• W4387493322 doi "https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_persp-23-00121" @default.
• W4387493322 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4387493322 type Work @default.
• W4387493322 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4387493322 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4387493322 hasAuthorship W4387493322A5006852647 @default.
• W4387493322 hasAuthorship W4387493322A5023579811 @default.
• W4387493322 hasAuthorship W4387493322A5078951555 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConceptScore W4387493322C15744967 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConceptScore W4387493322C509550671 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConceptScore W4387493322C71924100 @default.
• W4387493322 hasConceptScore W4387493322C95457728 @default.
• W4387493322 hasLocation W43874933221 @default.
• W4387493322 hasOpenAccess W4387493322 @default.
• W4387493322 hasPrimaryLocation W43874933221 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W4387493322 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W4387493322 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4387493322 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4387493322 workType "article" @default.