Cognitive and attentional deficits in children vulnerable to psychopathology

Cognitive and attentional deficits were assessed in children with either a schizophrenic, an affectively disordered or a normal parent. The children were grouped both by their parents' DSM-II diagnoses (broadly defined group of schizophrenics and heterogeneous group of depressives)and by a new set of diagnoses (narrowly defined group of schizophrenics, unipolar depressive group and bipolar group). Children whose parents met the more stringent criteria for schizoprhenia performed somewhat more deviantly than children whose parents met only DSM-II criteria. In addition, the importance of splitting the heterogeneous depressive group into more homogeneous subgroups is indicated by the findings that children of unipolar parents generally could not be distinguished from children whose parents are schizophrenic. On the other hand, children of bipolar parents performed reliably better than children of schizophrenics. These findings are viewed within the context of current high-risk studies and psychological deficit literature and suggest that diagnostic issues require more attention by researchers in these areas.This research was supported by Grant MH 21145 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors are indebted to Lina Jandorf for assistance in testing the children and with the data analyses.     

Clusteringn objects intok groups under optimal scaling of variables

We propose a method to reduce many categorical variables to one variable withk categories, or stated otherwise, to classifyn objects intok groups. Objects are measured on a set of nominal, ordinal or numerical variables or any mix of these, and they are represented asn points inp-dimensional Euclidean space. Starting from homogeneity analysis, also called multiple correspondence analysis, the essential feature of our approach is that these object points are restricted to lie at only one ofk locations. It follows that thesek locations must be equal to the centroids of all objects belonging to the same group, which corresponds to a sum of squared distances clustering criterion. The problem is not only to estimate the group allocation, but also to obtain an optimal transformation of the data matrix. An alternating least squares algorithm and an example are given.The authors thank Eveline Kroezen and Teije Euverman for their comments on a previous draft of this paper.     

A Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Notion of Relative Importance of Criteria

Multiple-criteria decision aid almost always requires the use of weights, importance coefficients or even a hierarchy of criteria, veto thresholds, etc. These are importance parameters that are used to differentiate the role devoted to each criterion in the construction of comprehensive preferences. Many researchers have studied the problem of how to assign values to such parameters, but few of them have tried to analyse in detail what underlies the notion of importance of criteria and to give a clear formal definition of it. In this paper our purpose is to define a theoretical framework so as to analyse the notion of the importance of criteria under very general conditions. Within this framework it clearly appears that the importance of criteria is taken into account in very different ways in various aggregation procedures. This framework also allows us to shed new light on fundamental questions such as: Under what conditions is it possible to state that one criterion is more important than another? Are importance parameters of the various aggregation procedures dependent on or independent of the encoding of criteria? What are the links between the two concepts of the importance of criteria and the compensatoriness of preferences? This theoretical framework seems to us sufficiently general to ground further research in order to define theoretically valid elicitation methods for importance parameters.     

A Fuzzy Topsis Method for Prioritized Aggregation in Multi‐Criteria Decision Making Problems

Aggregation in a decision making environment requires the fusion of opinions of a group of decision makers. The group of decision makers are required to analyse a set of interrelated criteria that are usually measured on a linguistic scale. This process requires, in many instances, to capture experts experience, intuition and thinking that are traditionally expressed in a linguistic fashion rather than a numerical fashion. Furthermore, the necessity of considering the relationship between the criteria to the overall decision must be considered by the group of decision makers. This paper extends the application of fuzzy numbers, fuzzy relative importance scores (FRIS), fuzzy relative weights (FRW) and the fuzzy technique of order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) in prioritized aggregation. This extension provides a mean to systematically aggregate a group of decision makers' views for a set of interrelated criteria that are measured on a linguistic scale. First, an overview of the application of fuzzy numbers and the characteristics of aggregating fuzzy numbers in multi‐criteria decision making problems are presented. Then, the application of TOPSIS in fuzzy environments is presented. Next, past research is highlighted to present prioritized aggregation and the different aggregation operators' classes. Subsequently, a new prioritized aggregation method is presented. This method utilizes fuzzy TOPSIS with prioritized aggregation in fuzzy environments. Finally, the fuzzy prioritized aggregation method presented in this paper is applied on an actual case study. According to the results, the method presented in this paper provides a systematic approach to capture the uncertainty and imprecision associated with quantifying linguistic measurements in multi‐criteria decision making problems. Furthermore, it considers the relationship between the set of linguistically measured criteria undergoing prioritized aggregation in a fuzzy environment. Lastly, findings, conclusions and future work are presented. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Guarding the gates of Europe: A typological analysis of immigration attitudes across 21 countries

With data from the European Social Survey (N = 36,602), individual patterns of three immigration attitudes, referred to as gatekeeping attitudes, were investigated within and across 21 European national contexts. Gatekeeping attitudes, akin to blatant and subtle forms of xenophobia, designate the level of endorsement of different admission standards set for immigrants entering European countries, as well as of expulsion criteria for immigrants transgressing norms and laws. A K‐means cluster analysis, performed on national majority members' scores of endorsement of individual (e.g., language and working skills) and categorical (e.g., skin colour, religion) entry criteria and individual expulsion criteria (e.g., criminal act, long‐term unemployment), yielded a typology of three constrained combinations of these dimensions. Strict gatekeepers favoured all criteria, lenient gatekeepers opposed all criteria, whereas individualist gatekeepers favoured individual and opposed categorical criteria. Membership in typology groups was predicted with a generalized prejudiced attitude construct, social status, and personal contact with immigrants. Lenient gatekeepers were less homophobic, had a higher education level, felt financially less vulnerable, and had more immigrant friends than strict gatekeepers. Individualist gatekeepers held an intermediate position. Variability was observed in all countries, despite the prevalence of a typology group within a given country. Strict gatekeepers were common among participants from Southern and Eastern European nations, lenient gatekeepers in Scandinavian countries, and individualist gatekeepers in Western European countries. Cross‐national differences are discussed in light of European immigration history and policies.     

Generating consensus priority interval vectors for group decision‐making in the AHP

Many practical and important decision‐making problems are complicated by at least two factors: (1) the qualitative/subjective nature of some criteria often results in uncertainty in the individual ratings; and (2) group decision‐making is involved and some means of aggregating individual ratings is required. Traditionally, both individual and group priorities have been represented as point estimates, but this approach presents severe limitations for accommodating imprecision in the decision‐making process. This paper examines the group decision‐making problem in the context where priorities are represented as numeric intervals. A set of techniques that could be used at some of the phases of an analytic hierarchy process (AHP)‐based group decision‐making process, which has the objective of generating a ‘consensus’ priority that represents the group's opinion with regards to the relative importance of a set of N objects (e.g. criteria, alternatives), is presented. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The simultaneous prediction of any number of criteria by the use of a unique set of weights

When several criteria are available, it is ordinarily necessary (1) to select one of them asthe criterion, (2) to use several and thus arrive at several different sets of weights, or (3) to combine them into a single measure. A formula is derived for the determination of a unique set of weights. The use of these weights will produce the highest possible average coefficient of correlation between the various criteria and two (or more) weighted independent variables. If desired, the criteria may be assigned any predetermined weights. The weights then derived for the independent variables are such that the weighted average of the correlation coefficients between the various criteria and the independent variable composite will be a maximum. In the use of these formulas, no assumptions are necessary regarding the interrelationships existing among the criteria and it is not necessary to compute the intercorrelations among the criteria. A numerical example is included.     

The Comparative Set Fallacy

This paper argues for the validity of inferences that take the form of: A is more X than B; therefore A and B are both X. After considering representative counterexamples, it is claimed that these inferences are valid if and only if the comparative terms in the inference are taken from no more than one comparative set, where a comparative set is understood to be comprised of a positive, comparative, and superlative, represented as {X, more X than, most X}. In all instances where arguments appearing to be of this form are invalid, it is the case that the argument has fallaciously taken terms from more than one comparative set. The fallacy of appealing to more than one comparative set in an inference involving comparative terms is shown to be analogous to the fallacy of equivocation in argumentation. The paper concludes by suggesting a conflation of logical issues with grammatical issues is the core difficulty leading some to consider inferences in the form of A is more X than B; therefore A and B are X to be invalid.     

Toward Development of a Projective Set

An exploration of the possibility of developing a projective set in a client that will allow for lowering of his defenses and thus possibly eliciting “richer projective materials.” A “anxious tension” set was produced in one group of Ss by means of an intelligence type test and “playful tension” was produced in another group by means of a fantasy task. A projective technique (Part A of the Rosenzweig F-Battery) was then given to both groups. The results indicate that this projective technique was taken at a more implicit (or deeper) level following the “playful tension” than following the “anxious tension.” Implications for the pre-test environment of projective techniques are given.     

Reconsidering Criterion A for the Diagnosis of Non-Suicidal Self-Injury Disorder

Empirical research is needed to verify that the DSM-5 proposed diagnostic criteria for non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) disorder provide a valid and clinically meaningful symptom set. The current study used data-driven methods to examine the diagnostic validity of the frequency and recency thresholds (i.e., Criterion A) for NSSI disorder. Data were collected from a random sample (n = 2206) of undergraduates. Participants completed counter-balanced questionnaires assessing the frequency, recency, and functions of NSSI, psychopathology symptoms, and indicators of distress and functional impairment. Discriminant functional analyses identified a significant differentiation for frequency between 10 or more acts of NSSI and 1–9 acts. Groups were also differentiated with a split on recency between less than 12-months ago and more than 12-months ago. After re-grouping the sample into categories based on the new frequency and 12-month recency threshold, the 10+ NSSI group reported significantly more functions for NSSI, including higher scores on affect regulation, self-punishment, and sensation seeking, than the subthreshold NSSI group. The 10+ NSSI group also reported significantly worse psychopathology, greater distress, and more impairment than both the subthreshold group and controls (no NSSI history). These findings indicate the current DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for NSSI disorder may be too liberal, and offer support for increasing the frequency thresholds for the diagnosis to ensure clinical validity and utility.     

A parameter analysis method for the weight‐set to satisfy preference orders of alternatives in additive multi‐criteria value models

In the context of the additive multi‐criteria value model, this paper investigates how the set of criteria weights (weight‐set hereafter) can be determined according to the preference orders of alternatives given by the decision maker. A construction method is proposed for the weight‐set for different intervals of β, where β is a differential amount of value between the preference information on two alternatives. The results of this paper are important for sensitivity analysis in multi‐criteria decision making (MCDM) problems and multi‐criteria group decision analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury in Adolescents: Characterization of the Disorder and the Issue of Distress and Impairment

Nonsuicidal self‐injury disorder (NSSID) is a condition in need of further study to assess the validity of the potential diagnosis and its suggested criteria. This study examined the NSSID diagnosis and investigated the distress/impairment criterion by comparing community adolescents who met all criteria for NSSID (n = 186) to adolescents with five or more nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) episodes (n = 314), and to a group of adolescents who met all criteria but negated that their NSSI caused them any distress or impairment, thus failing to meet criterion E (n = 29). The NSSID group delimited from the ≥ 5 NSSI group by reporting significantly more frequent and severe self‐injurious thoughts and behaviors, as well as having more experiences of negative life events and higher levels of trauma symptoms. There were also some differences between the NSSID group and adolescents without distress/impairment, which together contribute valuable information on the potential NSSID diagnosis, as well as the discussion of criterion E.     

Ranking water resource projects and evaluating criteria by multicriterion Q-analysis: an Austrian case study

A multicriterion decision-making (MCDM) concept is applied not only to provide possible solutions for a hydroecological problem but also to shed light on the discriminating capabilities of criteria. The aim is to identify a subset of a given set of criteria used to seek a satisfactory solution among several possible water resource projects being designed for the Austrian part of the Danube between Vienna and the Slovakian border. In this section the Danube is still a free-flowing river and possesses a high ecological value. There are three conflicting interests relative to this particular area, namely economic, ecological and sociological interests. The so-called multicriterion Q-analysis (MCQA) technique is applied to generate more effective discussions between conflicting groups than there have been in the past. The most preferred alternatives from among 12 possible projects, including several different hydroelectric power stations and National Park plans, are to be identified. The MCQA procedure is implemented to analyse the water resource projects with emphasis on criterion evaluation. In order to facilitate ranking alternatives, criteria with discriminating power have to be defined. For this purpose a new concept, MCQA-III, is developed and shown to be a useful tool to distinguish between important and less important criteria. MCQA techniques are based on Q-analysis, which describes the geometrical structure of the relationship between two finite sets, here the set of projects and the set of criteria. By using MCQA-I, MCQA-II and MCQA-III, a ranking of both alternatives and criteria is obtained. The MCQA-III procedure is applied to find an order among criteria which should give us more information on their importance for ranking alternatives, leading to a possible reduction of the number of criteria. This aspect plays a central role for an institution which must base its decision on a small but highly informative set of criteria. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mental imagery and creativity: A meta‐analytic review study

The reports of many creative individuals suggest the use of mental imagery in scientific and artistic production. A variety of protocols have tested the association between mental imagery and creativity, but the individual differences approach has been most frequently employed. This approach is assessed here through a range of meta‐analytic tests. Database searches revealed 18 papers employing the individual differences approach that were subjected to a conservative set of selection criteria. Nine studies (1,494 participants) were included in the final analyses. A marginal, but statistically significant, Fisher's Z‐transformed correlation coefficient was revealed. Further analyses showed little difference between form and type of self‐reported imagery and divergent thinking. Explanations for the failure to account for more than 3% of the variance in the data sets are discussed in the context of anecdotal reports, task validity, and design problems.     

Words in larger font are perceived as more important: explaining the belief that font size affects memory

ABSTRACT

Words presented in larger font size are considered more memorable and rated with higher judgments of learning (JOLs). One explanation for this phenomenon is that people believe that font size affects memory. However, it is not clear why people hold this belief. One alternative is that font size represents importance, with larger fonts implying more relevant information. More important information is judged as more memorable and is, in fact, better remembered. In Experiments 1 and 2 we presented words in small (18 points) and extra-large font (250 points) and found higher JOLs and higher judgments of importance with extra-large fonts. A mediation analysis showed that importance accounted for 21–23% of the effect of font size on JOLs. In Experiment 3, we tested whether processing fluency was higher with the extra-large font. In a lexical decision task, participants were slower at detecting words and non-words with extra-large than small font, which is the opposite of what the processing fluency hypothesis predicts. This result shows that the font-size effect persists even in conditions in which perceived fluency should be lower. In sum, this research explained the belief that font size affects memory because words in larger fonts are considered more important.     

Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison

Philosophy lacks criteria to evaluate its philosophical theories. To fill this gap, this essay introduces nine criteria to compare worldviews, classified in three broad categories: objective criteria (objective consistency, scientificity, scope), subjective criteria (subjective consistency, personal utility, emotionality), and intersubjective criteria (intersubjective consistency, collective utility, narrativity). The essay first defines what a worldview is and exposes the heuristic used in the quest for criteria. After describing each criterion individually, it shows what happens when each of them is violated. From the criteria, it derives assessment tests to compare and improve different worldviews. These include the is‐ought, ought‐act, and is‐act first‐order tests; the critical and dialectical second‐order tests; the mixed‐questions and first‐second‐order third‐order tests; and the we‐I, we‐it, and it‐I tests. The essay then applies these criteria and tests to a concrete example, comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity with Intelligent Design. For another application, it draws more general fruitful suggestions for the dialogue between science and religion.     

Knowledge creation in consumer research: Multiple routes,multiple criteria

The modal scientific approach in consumer research is to deduce hypotheses from existing theory about relationships between theoretic constructs, test those relationships experimentally, and then show “process” evidence via moderation and mediation. This approach has its advantages, but other styles of research also have much to offer. We distinguish among alternative research styles in terms of their philosophical orientation (theory-driven vs. phenomenon-driven) and their intended contribution (understanding a substantive phenomenon vs. building or expanding theory). Our basic premise is that authors who deviate from the dominant paradigm are hindered by reviewers who apply an unvarying set of evaluative criteria. We discuss the merits of different styles of research and suggest appropriate evaluative criteria for each.     

Hyperactivity and the Fragile X Syndrome

Workers who have claimed an association between Fragile X [fra(x)] Syndrome and Hyperactivity and aggressive behavior have done so despite the lack of controlled studies using standard diagnostic criteria. Accordingly, we provided a controlled test of the hypothesis that individuals with the fra(x) Syndrome are more hyperactive and have more symptoms of aggression than other mentally retarded individuals. The test formed part of a study to assess autistic behavior in fra(x) individuals. A sample of fra(x) individuals was obtained from the register of a clinical genetics unit and individually matched for age, sex, and IQ with mentally retarded individuals selected from assessment centres. Fortyfive pairs of fra(x) cases and control individuals were compared on criteria which reflected DSM-III concepts of hyperactivity and on criteria reflecting aggressive behavior. The comparison failed to find a higher prevalence of these symptoms in the fra(x) group. An analysis of the study's statistical power suggested that it is unlikely that the investigation failed to detect a large to medium difference between fra(x) individuals and control individuals in the symptoms investigated.