Resilience and entrepreneurial intentions of people with disabilities: in search of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Background: There is a significant gap in employment between people with and without disabilities, despite the importance of work in achieving their independence, autonomy, and integration into society. There are several reasons that cause this gap to exist, such as: people with disabilities feel less prepared, there is a stigma or discrimination to hire people with disabilities and the incompatibility of schedules due to medical issues, among others. That is why entrepreneurship emerges as a good option for the integration of people with disabilities in our society, improves their confidence and promotes some of the Sustainable Development Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. According to existing literature, people with disabilities have certain virtues such as resilience and motivation that favor entrepreneurship. Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide new insights into the variables that determine the entrepreneurial intention of people with disabilities. Methods: In order to respond to this objective, an online questionnaire was given to people with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 65 years, residing in diverse regions of Spain. To analyze the results, this study uses Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in a sample of 235 people with disabilities in Spain using as a framework Krueger´s improved model, adding resilience as a new variable. Results: The results reflect the importance of resilience, the subjective norm, and perceived collective efficacy in the entrepreneurial processes of people with disabilities. Conclusions: This study contributes to the underdeveloped literature on entrepreneurship in people with disabilities; it provides insights that can have a practical effect on the reduction of the inequality gap between people with and without disabilities making recommendations to clinicians, vocational psychologists, and policymakers; also, this study would advance the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 8 and 10.

Spain is not different: teaching quantitative courses can also be hazardous to one's career (at least in undergraduate courses).

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) have become a widely used tool for assessing teaching in higher education. However, numerous investigations have shown that SETs are subject to multiple biases, one of which is particularly relevant, namely, the area of knowledge to which the subject belongs. This article aims to replicate the article by Uttl & Smibert (2017, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3299) in a different educational context to verify whether the negative bias toward instructors who teach quantitative courses found by the authors in the US also appears in the Spanish university system. The study was conducted at the Business and Law School of the Universidad Pontificia Comillas, a private Spanish university, using two different samples. First, we analyzed undergraduate courses using a sample of 80,667 SETs in which 2,885 classes (defined as a single semester-long course taught by an individual instructor to a specific group of students), 488 instructors, and 322 different courses were evaluated over a time period of four academic years (2016/2017-2019/2020). Second, in the same period, 16,083 SETs corresponding to master's degree courses were analyzed, which involved the study of 871 classes, 275 instructors, and 155 different courses. All the data included in the analysis were obtained from official university surveys developed by a team of professionals specialized in teaching quality responsible for ensuring the reliability of the information. At the degree level, the results show that despite the considerable cultural and temporal difference between the samples, the results are very similar to those obtained by Uttl & Smibert (2017, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3299); i.e., professors teaching quantitative courses are far more likely to obtain worse SETs than instructors in other areas. There are hardly any differences at the master's degree level, regardless of whether nearly 75% of master's degree instructors also teach at the undergraduate level. This leads us to three different conclusions. (1) Evidence suggests that the reason for these differences is not due to faculty teaching quantitative courses being less effective than faculty teaching in some other fields. Our results indicate that the same instructor is evaluated very differently depending on whether he or she teaches at the undergraduate or master's level. (2) It is essential to avoid comparisons of SETs between different areas of knowledge, at least at the undergraduate level. (3) A significant change in the use and interpretation of SETs is imperative, or its replacement by other evaluation mechanisms should be considered. If this does not occur, it is possible that in the future, there will be an adverse selection effect among professors of quantitative methods; i.e., only the worst professionals in quantitative methods will opt for teaching since the good professionals will prefer other jobs.

Competitive Debate: A Successful Inter-team Gamification Experience in the Human Resources Subject.

Students demand more active and participating teaching innovation methods, and activities such as presentations are not enough to satisfy those demands. In this research, competitive debate is used as inter-team gamification with third year students from a Business School studying the Human Resources Management subject. Out of this experience, qualitative and quantitative data are obtained. Results reinforce the continuation of classroom competitive debate due to the evidence of its motivational, learning, and communication skills improvement, and knowledge acquisition effects. The possibility of application with actual professionals is seriously considered.

Impact of education, age and gender on investor's sentiment: A survey of practitioners9.

The field of behavioral finance lacks a homogeneous and structured theoretical framework. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to further systematization in the field by analyzing the impacts of education, gender and age on investor behavior and sentiment. The study is based on online anonymous surveys given to 106 professional investors active in the Spanish market during February 2017. The survey includes control questions, seven questions regarding investors' sentiment to elaborate a confidence index and twenty questions concerning the practitioner's view of behavioral finance. We first identify a gap between the relevance of behavioral finance and the lack of education in the field. We also find a clear misalignment between the investors and their clients' profiles related to their level of confidence. In that regard, the use of the institutional investor confidence index mitigates self-perception bias and is a key element in determining investors' real profiles. Consistent with prior research, we find that female investors view themselves as more driven by rational analysis and are more risk averse while younger investors are more influenced by cognitive and emotional biases. As a key contribution, we establish a model to determine investors' sentiment, which shows that female and more experienced practitioners exhibit higher levels of optimism and confidence.

Competitive Debate as Innovation in Gamification and Training for Adult Learners: A Conceptual Analysis.

Adult learners demand teaching innovations that are ever more rapid and attractive. As a response to these demands and the challenges of skills training, this article presents a conceptual analysis that introduces competitive debate as an impact training model. The aim is to learn whether debate can be considered to fall within the frame of gamification, so that the full potential of debate as gamification can be exploited. There is a significant research gap regarding competitive debate as a game, with the training mechanics for adult learners remaining practically unexplored. Through a conceptual analysis of game, game experience, and gamification, and their respective characteristics, we conclude that competitive debate is an ideal instrument for gamification.

Analysis of the technical efficiency of the forms of hospital management based on public-private collaboration of the Madrid Health Service, as compared with traditional management.

FUNDAMENTALS: The study aims to carry out a comparative analysis of the technical efficiency of hospital management based on public-private collaboration, as compared with traditional management. Specifically, we compare traditionally managed public hospitals, public hospitals managed by a private finance initiative (PFI), public hospitals managed through a public-private partnership (PPP), and hospitals managed through other forms of management, during the period 2009 to 2014, in the hospitals dependent on the Madrid Health Service (SERMAS). METHODS: The study covers all publicly owned general hospitals under SERMAS, consisting of seven PFI hospitals, three PPP hospitals, 11 traditionally managed public hospitals (with the category of general hospital), and four hospitals managed through other forms of hospital management. The technical efficiency indices of the hospitals were calculated using the data envelopment analysis technique. Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was performed by bootstrapping and variation of model variables to verify their impact on efficiency. Finally, an analysis of the evolution of efficiency in the analyzed period was carried out using the Malmquist Index. RESULTS: In all the analysis models carried out in the analyzed period, the hospitals managed based on public-private collaboration were more efficient than the hospitals under traditional management. CONCLUSIONS: The greater efficiency of hospitals managed based on public-private collaboration, as compared with traditional management, could be attributed to greater organizational and management flexibility.