Coherence. This is the first year of reporting this indicator. Similar data are published annually in NBCSP monitoring reports prepared by the AIHW. The most recent of these reports is National bowel cancer screening program monitoring report 2009. In the NBCSP reports, screening rates are presented as a proportion of the number of invitations to participate in a given time. In this indicator, screening rates are presented as a proportion of the ERP for people aged 50, 55 and 65. In addition, both numerators and denominators used for NBCSP monitoring reports exclude those people who opt off, or suspend participation from the program. This indicator does not exclude these people from either numerator or denominator. Consequently, results of this indicator will vary from Program participation presented in annual NBCSP reports and the results should not be compared. Source and reference attributes Submitting organisation: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Relational attributes Related metadata references: Has been superseded by National Healthcare Agreement: PI 12-Bowel cancer screening rates, 2011 QS
Coherence. The DoHA aged care data used to construct the numerator of this benchmark are consistent and comparable over time. For measure f i, there are issues with the consistency of the numerator and denominator, as the numerator and denominator are drawn from differently defined populations and different data sources. These issues reduce the consistency of the performance indicators and lead to quality issues. While the numerator is taken from the DoHA aged care data warehouse, the denominator is an estimate derived from SDAC and ERP data. In the denominator, ‘estimated potential population for specialist disability services’ is defined as the estimated population with requiring, or entitled to, disability services. However, this does not match well with the numerator, which consists of people who used specialist residential aged care services. People who used these services may have a mild or moderate core activity limitation or limitations in other activities. Data products Implementation start date: 28/06/2011 Source and reference attributes Submitting organisation: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Xxxxxxx: Disability Policy and Research Working Group (DPRWG)
Coherence. Create coherence and leverage opportunities to reinforce it. Without explicit linkage to other priorities and on-going work, the new educator evaluation regulations will be both perceived and undertaken as an "add on" that is disconnected from daily practice and big picture goals for the school and district, limiting opportunities for feedback and growth. Linking the data analysis, self-assessment, goal setting, and evidence collection activities required for educator evaluation to key activities already underway in the school is one way to build this coherence. For example, all schools and districts are transitioning to the new MA Frameworks in Mathematics and English Language Arts. Team goal setting in the evaluation cycle can be used to advance this work: teacher teams can share the common professional practice goal of learning "backwards design" principles and applying them to design together a unit that aligns with the new Frameworks. Department, grade level and/or faculty meetings can provide opportunity to share and critique models. Similarly, a school may be revamping parent-teacher conferences. In this case, the evidence collection component of the evaluation cycle—for both evaluators and educators—could focus on collecting and analyzing data about the implementation and impact of this change in practice. At one faculty meeting, indicators for Standard III (Parent Engagement) can be "unpacked" and new expectations for the conferences developed; at a later one, faculty can share their experiences and the feedback they solicited in order to refine the practice for the future. Overview
Coherence. The information presented for this indicator is calculated using the same methodology as data published in Australian hospital statistics 2009–10 and the
Coherence. The data items used for the numerator in this indicator are consistent and comparable over time. This indicator is consistent with other publicly available information about aged care places. Indigenous population projections have been calculated using a different method compared with that used in previous years. This will have a small effect on comparability with results from previous years. In 2011, the ABS updated the standard geography used in Australia for most data collections from the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) to the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). Also updated at this time were remoteness areas, based on the 2011 ABS Census of Population and Housing. The new remoteness areas will be referred to as RA 2011, and the previous remoteness areas as RA 2006. Data for 2009 through to 2012 reported by remoteness were reported for RA 2006. Data for 2013 and subsequent years are reported for RA 2011. The AIHW considers the change from RA 2006 to RA 2011 to be a series break when applied to data supplied for this indicator, therefore remoteness data for 2012 and previous years are not directly comparable to remoteness data for 2013 and subsequent years. Relational attributes Related metadata references: Supersedes National Healthcare Agreement: PI 26-Residential and community aged care places per 1000 population aged 70+ years, 2014 QS Health, Superseded 14/01/2015 Has been superseded by National Healthcare Agreement: PI 26-Residential and community aged care places per 1,000 population aged 70+ years (and Aboriginal and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Islander people aged 50-69 years), 2016 QS
Coherence. The concepts used for the statistics on land prices and rents should be coherent with those of the Economic Accounts for Agriculture. The definitions of the land categories should be as comparable as possible with the definition used for weighting and aggregating the results.
Coherence. Some of these data are published annually in Program monitoring reports prepared by the AIHW. These reports include participation by State and Territory and participation by remoteness and socioeconomic status categories nationally. Data for 2009–2010 will be published in 2012. State and Territory participation will differ between these data and those published in Cervical screening in Australia 2009–2010, because State and Territory participation in cervical screening monitoring reports is based on State or Territory of screen, rather than State or Territory of residence, since this is more appropriate for program monitoring. However, participation by remoteness areas and socioeconomic status categories nationally will be the same. Relational attributes Related metadata references: Supersedes National Healthcare Agreement: PI 11-Cervical screening rates, 2011 QS
Coherence. The information presented for this indicator is calculated using the same methodology as data published in Australian hospital statistics 2009 10, although it is based on more recent data than presented in that publication. The denominator for the indicator is based on the reported admitted patient activity, adjusted using cost-weights to derive a ‘standard’ unit of output as an artificial construct. The estimated number of cost-weighted separations (particularly using constant AR-DRGs and AR-DRG cost weights over time) is for comparison purposes only. Time series analysis of this indicator is not recommended. Relational attributes Related metadata references: Supersedes National Healthcare Agreement: PI 69-Cost per casemix adjusted separation, 2011 QS
Coherence. The coherence of the variables is checked with Regulation (EC) No 543/2009, and when relevant, with the Farm Structure Survey data (ex-post).
Coherence. Mathematics is comprised of interconnected concepts and has a sequential order. Therefore, the standards are designed around a coherent progression from grade to grade. Coherent standards provide a sequence of topics and performances that are logical and reflect, where appropriate, the sequential and hierarchical nature of the content (Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 2012). This allows the standards to reinforce major topics in each grade and support math concepts that students will learn in the following grade. The standards are designed in progressions that link as a student moves from grade to grade. This makes learning connected across grades so students can build new understandings on a foundation built from previous years (Xxxxxx, 2014). The main mission of the Common Core initiative is for teachers to collaborate in classrooms and across grades to determine the way they will teach math so that there is a clear and logical progression as a student moves through school (Akkus, 2016). Each standard can be viewed as an extension of previous learning and not an isolated concept.
