Clinically useful,research validated assessment of persons with alcohol problems

Advances in treatment approaches available for persons with alcohol problems, particularly the advent of cognitive behavioral and motivational approaches, have made systematic assessment of these problems more important than ever for clinicians. There is a plethora of assessment instruments available, and it is a difficult task for clinicians to conceptualize, select and use these instruments in a coherent fashion. Particularly important in this task is the identification of research validated instruments that provide both clinically useful and psychometrically sound data. This paper presents a model of alcohol assessment and reviews selected research validated instruments that can be assembled into an assessment battery that provides useful data to guide treatment of alcohol problems while also addressing practical concerns encountered by clinicians in practice.     

An investigation into assessment centre validity,fairness, and selection drivers

This study examined the construct‐related validity of an assessment centre (AC) developed by a national distribution company for the selection and development of lower‐grade managers. In five locations throughout Britain, 487 individuals were observed on nine dimensions, each of which was measured through six distinct exercises. Multitrait‐multimethod analyses conducted to investigate the convergent and discriminant validity of the AC revealed strong exercise (“method”) effects. This finding was corroborated by an exploratory factor analysis showing that AC ratings clustered into factors according to exercises, rather than according to performance dimensions. A series of MANOVAs and chi‐squared tests demonstrated that neither the exercise ratings nor the selection decision were biased by sex, ethnicity, or training location, and a logistic regression determined which exercises had most impact on the final decision.     

Properties of hypothesis testing techniques and (Bayesian) model selection for exploration‐based and theory‐based (order‐restricted) hypotheses

In this paper, the performance of six types of techniques for comparisons of means is examined. These six emerge from the distinction between the method employed (hypothesis testing, model selection using information criteria, or Bayesian model selection) and the set of hypotheses that is investigated (a classical, exploration‐based set of hypotheses containing equality constraints on the means, or a theory‐based limited set of hypotheses with equality and/or order restrictions). A simulation study is conducted to examine the performance of these techniques. We demonstrate that, if one has specific, a priori specified hypotheses, confirmation (i.e., investigating theory‐based hypotheses) has advantages over exploration (i.e., examining all possible equality‐constrained hypotheses). Furthermore, examining reasonable order‐restricted hypotheses has more power to detect the true effect/non‐null hypothesis than evaluating only equality restrictions. Additionally, when investigating more than one theory‐based hypothesis, model selection is preferred over hypothesis testing. Because of the first two results, we further examine the techniques that are able to evaluate order restrictions in a confirmatory fashion by examining their performance when the homogeneity of variance assumption is violated. Results show that the techniques are robust to heterogeneity when the sample sizes are equal. When the sample sizes are unequal, the performance is affected by heterogeneity. The size and direction of the deviations from the baseline, where there is no heterogeneity, depend on the effect size (of the means) and on the trend in the group variances with respect to the ordering of the group sizes. Importantly, the deviations are less pronounced when the group variances and sizes exhibit the same trend (e.g., are both increasing with group number).     

Personnel selection in the digital age: a review of validity and applicant reactions,and future research challenges

ABSTRACT

We present a targeted review of recent developments and advances in digital selection procedures (DSPs) with particular attention to advances in internet-based techniques. By reviewing the emergence of DSPs in selection research and practice, we highlight five main categories of methods (online applications, online psychometric testing, digital interviews, gamified assessment and social media). We discuss the evidence base for each of these DSP groups, focusing on construct and criterion validity, and applicant reactions to their use in organizations. Based on the findings of our review, we present a critique of the evidence base for DSPs in industrial, work and organizational psychology and set out an agenda for advancing research. We identify pressing gaps in our understanding of DSPs, and ten key questions to be answered. Given that DSPs are likely to depart further from traditional non-digital selection procedures in the future, a theme in this agenda is the need to establish a distinct and specific literature on DSPs, and to do so at a pace that reflects the speed of the underlying technological advancement. In concluding, we, therefore, issue a call to action for selection researchers in work and organizational psychology to commence a new and rigorous multidisciplinary programme of scientific study of DSPs.     

Ambulatory assessment for physical activity research: State of the science,best practices and future directions

Technological and digital progress benefits physical activity (PA) research. Here we compiled expert knowledge on how Ambulatory Assessment (AA) is utilized to advance PA research, i.e., we present results of the 2nd International CAPA Workshop 2019 “Physical Activity Assessment – State of the Science, Best Practices, Future Directions” where invited researchers with experience in PA assessment, evaluation, technology and application participated. First, we provide readers with the state of the AA science, then we give best practice recommendations on how to measure PA via AA and shed light on methodological frontiers, and we furthermore discuss future directions. AA encompasses a class of methods that allows the study of PA and its behavioral, biological and physiological correlates as they unfold in everyday life. AA includes monitoring of movement (e.g., via accelerometry), physiological function (e.g., via mobile electrocardiogram), contextual information (e.g., via geolocation-tracking), and ecological momentary assessment (EMA; e.g., electronic diaries) to capture self-reported information. The strengths of AA are data assessments near real-time, which minimize retrospective biases in real-world settings, consequentially enabling ecological valid findings. Importantly, AA enables multiple assessments across time within subjects resulting in intensive longitudinal data (ILD), which allows unraveling within-person determinants of PA in everyday life. In this paper, we show how AA methods such as triggered e-diaries and geolocation-tracking can be used to measure PA and its correlates, and furthermore how these findings may translate into real-life interventions. In sum, AA provides numerous possibilities for PA research, especially the opportunity to tackle within-subject antecedents, concomitants, and consequences of PA as they unfold in everyday life. In-depth insights on determinants of PA could help us design and deliver impactful interventions in real-world contexts, thus enabling us to solve critical health issues in the 21st century such as insufficient PA and high levels of sedentary behavior.     

New assessment systems for residential treatment,management, research,and evaluation: A symposium

An introduction and overview are presented to new observational assessment systems for ongoing assessment and monitoring of both staff and resident (client or patient) functioning in residential treatment programs for emotionally disturbed and mentally retarded adults.Preparation of articles and the research and development on which the articles are based was supported, in part, by Public Health Service Grants MH-15553 and MH-25464 from the National Institute of Mental Health, and by grants from the Joyce Foundation and the Illinois Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.A symposium presented at the 87th Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Association, New York City, September 1979.     

Should research experience be used for selection into graduate school: A discussion and meta‐analytic synthesis of the available evidence

Prior research experience is widely considered by graduate school admissions committees in the United States of America. Here, we use meta‐analytic methods and data from 18 unique samples and a total sample size of 3,525 students to shed light on the validity of prior research experience as a predictor of graduate school performance. Prior research experience was largely unrelated to academic performance (ρ = .01, k = 8, N = 1,419), degree attainment (ρ = .05, k = 3, N = 140), professional/practice performance (ρ = .06, k = 4, N = 1,120), and publication performance (ρ = .11, k = 7, N = 1,094). We also discuss whether consideration of prior research experience may unfairly disadvantage the students with lower levels of SES, students with childcare or eldercare responsibilities, and students from institutions at which research opportunities are limited.     

Psychometric Properties of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory, the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents, the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, and the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale in an Adolescent Spanish-Speaking Sample

The relationship among several social anxiety measures and a semistructured interview in an adolescent Spanish-speaking sample is examined. Construct validity and test-retest reliability were tested. A principal axis factor analysis was also explored. Results revealed good construct validity and alpha coefficients for the assessment instruments such as the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A), the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNES) and the Social Avoidance Distress Scale (SADS). Among these, data strongly support the validity of the Social Phobia and Difference measures of the SPAI and Total SAS-A score as assessment measures in the adolescent population even in non-American cultures and languages. Furthermore, results appear to support the presence of a single higher-order dimension, social anxiety, as measured by the instruments used in this study.