INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Interrater correlations are widely interpreted as estimates of the reliability of supervisory performance ratings, and are frequently used to correct the correlations between ratings and other measures (e.g., test scores) for attenuation. These interrater correlations do provide some useful information, but they are not reliability coefficients. There is clear evidence of systematic rater effects in performance appraisal, and variance associated with raters is not a source of random measurement error. We use generalizability theory to show why rater variance is not properly interpreted as measurement error, and show how such systematic rater effects can influence both reliability estimates and validity coefficients. We show conditions under which interrater correlations can either overestimate or underestimate reliability coefficients, and discuss reasons other than random measurement error for low interrater correlations.     

EVOLUTION AND THEODICY: HOW (NOT) TO DO SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

This article uses Christopher Southgate's work and engagement with other scholars on the topic of evolutionary theodicy as a case study in the dialogue of science and Christian theology. A typology is outlined of ways in which the voices of science and the Christian tradition may be related in a science–theology dialogue, and examples of each position on the typology are given from the literature on evolution and natural evil. The main focus is on Southgate's evolutionary theodicy and the alternative proposal by Neil Messer. By bringing these two accounts into dialogue, some key methodological issues are brought into focus, enabling some conclusions to be drawn about the range and limits of fruitful methodological possibilities for dialogues between science and Christian theology.     

REASONS AND MOTIVATION—NOT A WRONG DISTINCTION

This paper responds to Susan Hurley's attempt to undermine the adequacy of the distinction at the heart of the internalism-externalism debate about reasons for action. The paper shows that Hurley's argument fails and then, more positively, indicates a neat way to characterize the distinction.     

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ‘HOW DO YOU KNOW?’ CHALLENGES A SPEAKER'S KNOWLEDGE?

It is often argued that the general propriety of challenging an assertion with ‘How do you know?’ counts as evidence for the Knowledge Norm of Assertion (KNA). Part of the argument is that this challenge seems to directly challenge whether a speaker knows what she asserts. In this article I argue for a re‐interpretation of the data, the upshot of which is that we need not interpret ‘How do you know?’ as directly challenging a speaker's knowledge; instead, it's better understood as challenging a speaker's reasons. Consequently, I argue that reasons‐based norms can equally well explain this data.     

NONSTATIONARY DATA SHOULD NOT BE “CORRECTED”

Ellis (1979), in his study of interaction patterns in groups, discovered that his data did not satisfy the assumptions of a simple Markov model. In particular, he found that his data failed to satisfy the assumption of stationarity. In response to this, Ellis employed a new composite matrix procedure to generate a single set of predicted one-step transition probabilities. This essay argues that this procedure (1) does not generate one-step probabilities, (2) does not produce legitimately interpretable results, and (3) is a fundamentally inappropriate response to the discovery of nonstationary data. The composite matrix procedure used by Ellis is discussed and appropriate responses to the discovery of nonstationary interaction data are proposed.     

TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY AFTER AND WITH—BUT NOT AGAINST—AQUINAS?

Gilles Emery, Trinity in Aquinas , O.P. (Ypsilanti, Michigan: Sapientia Press, 2003), ix +361 pp.
Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology (Malden, Massa-chusetts: Blackwell, 2004), x +254 pp
Timothy L. Smith, Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian Theology: A Study in Theological Method (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), xiii +258 pp.     

DO THE SELF‐DECEIVED GET WHAT THEY WANT?

Abstract: Two of the most basic questions regarding self‐deception remain unsettled: What do self‐deceivers want? What do self‐deceivers get? I argue that self‐deceivers are motivated by a desire to believe. However, in significant contrast with Alfred Mele's account of self‐deception, I argue that self‐deceivers do not satisfy this desire. Instead, the end‐state of self‐deception is a false higher‐order belief. This shows all self‐deception to be a failure of self‐knowledge.     

PROBLEMS OF INTERNALIZATION: A BUTTON IS A BUTTON IS—NOT

Analysts hope to help the patient internalize a relationship with the analyst that contrasts with the original archaic object relation. In this paper, the author describes particular difficulties in working with a patient whose defenses and anxieties were bulimic, her movement toward internalization inevitably undone. Several issues are considered: how does the nonsymbolizing patient come to internalize the analyst's understanding, and when this does not hold, what is the nature of the patient's subsequent methods of dispersal? When the patient can maintain connection to the analyst as a good object, even fleetingly, in the depressive position, the possibility of internalization and symbolic communication is increased.     

INCREASING ONE ASPECT OF SELF‐DETERMINATION AMONG ADULTS WITH SEVERE MULTIPLE DISABILITIES IN SUPPORTED WORK

We attempted to increase one aspect of self‐determination among 3 supported workers with multiple disabilities. Following Baer's (1998) self‐determination conceptualization, the workers were exposed to two conditions that involved working more versus less independently based on availability of assistive devices. Next, their condition preferences were assessed and honored. All participants consistently chose the more independent condition. Results reflect how self‐determination may be enhanced by giving workers increased control over work situations.