Careful What You Wish

Dilip Ninan has raised a puzzle for centered world accounts of de re attitude reports extended to accommodate what he calls “counterfactual attitudes.” As a solution, Ninan introduces multiple centers to the standard centered world framework, resulting in a more robust semantics for de re attitude reports. However, while the so-called multi-centered world proposal solves Ninan’s counterfactual puzzle, this additional machinery is not without problems. In Section 1, I present the centered world account of attitude reports, followed by the extension to counterfactual attitudes which Ninan targets with his puzzle. In Section 2, I pose the counterfactual puzzle and present Ninan’s multi-centered world solution, emphasizing similarities and differences between multi-centered and centered world accounts of attitude reports. In Section 3, I argue the counterfactual attitude wishing falls under the purview of the multi-centered proposal, but that the proposal generates false predictions for wish reports concerning unsatisfiable content. I canvass responses, ultimately concluding Ninan’s proposal requires substantial revisions.     

Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Response Instructions on the Construct Validity and Reliability of Situational Judgment Tests

The aim of this study was to examine how six different types of situational judgment test (SJT) instructions, used frequently in practice, influence the psychometric characteristics of SJTs. The six SJT versions used the exact same items and differed only in their instructions; these versions were administered in two phases. Phase I was a between–subjects design (n= 486) that had participants complete one version of the SJTs. Phase II was a within–subjects design (n= 231) held several weeks later that had participants complete all six versions of the SJTs. Further, 146 of these individuals completed both phases, allowing for an assessment of test–retest reliability. A variety of objective and subjective criteria were collected, including self and peer ratings. Results indicated that instructions had a large effect on SJT responses, reliability, and validity. In general, instructions asking what one ‘would do’ showed more favorable characteristics than those that asked what one ‘should do’. Correlations between these two types were relatively low despite the fact that the same items were used, and criterion–related validities differed substantially in favor of the ‘would do’ instructions. Overall, this study finds that researchers and practitioners must give careful consideration to the types of SJT instructions used; failing to do so could influence criterion–related validity and cloud inferences of construct validity.     

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You1

This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom... —Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol     

What the Problem May Be With Family Intervention … and With Dissemination More Generally: A Commentary

While the two decades since the study by Kavanagh et al. (1993) has given additional insights into effective dissemination of family interventions, the accompanying papers show that progress remains limited. The effectiveness trial that triggered this series of papers offers a cautionary tale. Despite management support, 30–35 hr of workshop training and training of local supervisors who could act as champions, use of the full intervention was limited. In part, this seemed due to the demanding nature of the intervention and its incompatibility with practitioners' roles, in part, to limitations in the training, among other factors. While the accompanying papers note these and other barriers to dissemination, they miss a more disturbing finding in the original paper: Practitioners said they were using several aspects in routine care, despite being unable to accurately describe what they were. This finding highlights the risks in taking practitioners' reports of their practice in files or supervision sessions at face value and potentially has implications for reports of other clinical work. The fidelity of disseminated treatments can only be assured by audits of practice, accompanied by affirming but also corrective feedback.     

You Can't Be Serious!

Abstract

Jim Cotter frames this paper in the form of a one-sided conversation with Michael Vasey about two particular phrases that Vasey was responsible for in the current Anglican liturgy. The first comes from the baptismal rite and talks of the candidate submitting themselves to Christ as Lord. By reference to marriage and other liturgical contexts, Cotter asks whether this is an appropriate image for the twenty-first century, especially in the light of the debate about sexual abuse. The second phrase is taken from the Easter liturgy and talks of light invading the darkness. Once again Cotter challenges the military implications of this language and the negative associations that such a phrase gives to ‘darkness’ Cotter makes a call for far more careful reflection on the use of language in worship and offers a number of alternative suggestions of his own.