Convergent and Discriminant Validity of FACES-III: Family Adaptability and Cohesion

Research on earlier versions of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) has ostensibly shown that the scales lack discriminant and convergent validity (23). However, these studies have defined convergence as agreement between family members or as agreement between family members and family therapists. Such definitions confound real differences between respondents' perceptions of the family with the notion of convergent validity. In the current study, we take a different approach to construct validity. Multiple measures of family adaptability, cohesion, and talkativeness were administered to two family members (insiders) and two significant others (outsiders). The two insiders' responses were averaged together, as were the two outsiders' responses. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we demonstrated that family adaptability, cohesion, and talkativeness are distinct traits, and that the different sources of information about these traits, including FACES-III (24), have convergent validity.     

The Search for Reliable Generalizations About Messages A Comparison of Research Strategies

Two ways of conducting the search for generalizations about messages are considered: Morley's (this volume) proposal that single-message research designs be used, with subsequent meta-analytic summaries, and Jackson and Jacobs's (1983) proposal that multiple-message designs be used, with messages treated as a random factor in the statistical analysis. Jackson and Jacobs's approach is shown to provide a more dependable, efficient, and practical means for gathering the requisite evidence for dependable generalizations. The charge that multiple-message designs suffer from irreparable problems of experimenter bias is refuted. The treatment of messages as a random factor is defended as statistically appropriate and as clearly preferable to the statistical alternatives.     

Discrepancy between human resource research and practice: Comparison of industrial/organisational psychologists and human resource practitioners' beliefs

There is a large and growing body of research to show that human resource (HR) practices affect individual performance, organisational productivity and organisational performance. Academic findings about effective HR practices, however, have not readily been adopted by practitioners. A variety of theoretical and practical explanations have been advanced about the research–practice gap. Research by Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) suggested that the research–practice gap is due to a lack of knowledge, but the extent to which these findings apply to the Australian context is unknown. The sample consisted of 102 industrial/organisational (I/O) psychologists and 89 HR practitioners. The main aim of the present study was to replicate and extend the work of Rynes et al. by examining and comparing the knowledge of I/O psychologists and HR practitioners. It was found that overall I/O psychologists were better informed about HR research than HR practitioners; in particular, they were more knowledgeable about management practices and recruitment and selection. In both groups, of the five content areas examined (Management Practices; General Employment Practices; Training and Development; Recruitment and Selection; and Compensation and Benefits), the greatest gaps were in Recruitment and Selection.     

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.     

RELATIONAL SCHEMATA

One key task of research in relational communication is to understand how relational knowledge guides communicative processes. A necessary step in that direction is to determine what form of relational knowledge guides the cognitive processes involved in producing and comprehending messages. Based on tests of other forms of social knowledge, the best unobtrusive indicator of relational knowledge was determined to be systematic distortions in memory. Three forms of relational knowledge—general dimensional knowledge, situation-specific knowledge, and behavior-specific knowledge—were contrasted for their ability to account for biases in memory for relational implications of remarks in conversations. Two sets of results were noteworthy. First, very strong effects on both accuracy and direction of memory were found, indicating that some form of relational knowledge guided memory for conversations. Second, when the three forms of relational knowledge were contrasted, only one—behavior-specific knowledge—accounted for a significant proportion of those memory effects (83% for accuracy and 85% for errors). The findings challenge the validity of well-established dimension- and situation-based approaches to relational knowledge and suggest alternative approaches that may be more compatible with the uses to which relational knowledge is put in communication.     

GENERALIZING ABOUT MESSAGES: SUGGESTIONS FOR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS

Current research practices in communication create problems for both internal and external validity. One serious design flaw, which involves use of a single message to represent a category of messages, occurs in nearly all of the experimental research on communication effects. The problem with such a design is that an observed difference between categories may reflect only differences between individual, idiosyncratic cases. A related error, the “language-as-fixed-effect fallacy,” involves use of several replications of each category, but analysis of the cases as fixed effects. The consequence is that findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample used. Future research should use multiple cases within each message category studied and treat cases as nested random effects. Since the cases cannot be true random samples from message populations, care must be taken to avoid known sources of bias or other barriers to generalization.