A Psychometric Investigation of the Suicide Status Form II with a Psychiatric Inpatient Sample

We investigated the psychometric validity and reliability of the Suicide Status Form‐II (SSF‐II) developed by Jobes, Jacoby, Cimbolic, and Hustead (1997) . Participants were 149 psychiatric inpatients (108 suicidal; 41 nonsuicidal) at the Mayo Clinic. Each participant completed assessment measures within 24 hours of admission and 48–72 hours later. Factor analyses of the SSF core assessment produced a robust two‐factor solution reflecting chronic and acute response styles. The SSF core assessment had good to excellent convergent and criterion validity; pre‐post SSF ratings also demonstrated moderate test‐retest reliability. The results replicated previous research and show that the SSF‐II is psychometrically sound with a high‐risk suicidal inpatient sample.     

A Longitudinal Test of the Job Demands‐Resources Model among Australian University Academics

A longitudinal test of the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model of work stress and engagement ( Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 ; Demerouti et al., 2001 ) was conducted in a sample of Australian university academics (N= 296). The aim was to extend the JD‐R model by (1) determining how well job demands (work pressure, academic workload) and job resources (procedural fairness, job autonomy) would predict psychological strain and organisational commitment over a three‐year period, and (2) incorporating longitudinal tests of reversed causation. The results of SEM analyses showed that Time 1 resources directly predicted Time 2 strain and organisational commitment, but that Time 1 demands predicted Time 2 strain only indirectly via job resources. We did not find evidence for reversed causation. We discuss possible mediators of the relationships between working conditions and work stress outcomes, and the practical implications of the results.     

Some nontraditional (Unconventional and/or innovative) sychosocial treatments for children and adolescents: Critique and proposed screening principles

Five examples of nontraditional psychosocial treatments used for children/adolescents are reviewed: eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback, deep pressure/touch therapies, stress-challenge treatments, and confrontational scare treatments. The generic recommendations from the September 1992 National Institutes of Health Conference on Unconventional Medical Treatments are summarized. Additional screening principles specific for psychosocial treatments are proposed and applied to the five treatments. The screens do not validate treatment efficacy or evaluate the quality of any previous research, but only facilitate decisions as to whether treatments deserve controlled investigation. Scientific evaluation of the nontraditional treatments reviewed could in general benefit from blinds (at least for assessment); control conditions matched for intensity, frequency, and duration (double blind where feasible); dose-response studies; testing of generalization and endurance supplements or boosters for quick, cheap treatments with time- or domain-limited effects; and comparing cost-effectiveness with established treatments. Two unscientific pitfalls must be avoided: embracing new treatments uncritically and rejecting them without fair examination. These pitfalls must be skirted without dissipating scarce research resources.The views and proposals in this article are those of the author, and do not in any way reflect any official National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) position. Further, mention or review of any particular treatment does not constitute endorsement of that treatment by either NIMH or the author.     

Understanding the foot‐in‐the‐door effect as a pseudo‐effect from the perspective of the Campbell paradigm

Compliance with a small request (a metaphorical foot‐in‐the‐door) promotes compliance with a subsequent big request. Whereas some explanations expect a drop in the behavioural costs of the big request, others suspect that the effect comes from boosting the underlying attitude. However, evidence for both explanations is equivocal and circumstantial, at best. Drawing on what Kaiser et al. (2010) call the Campbell paradigm, we present an integrative account: Compliance with any request demands a corresponding attitude to counterbalance the costs of the request. In our research, 229 participants were randomly assigned to either a foot‐in‐the‐door (i.e., initially asked to sign a pro‐environmental petition) or a control condition. Small‐request‐compliant participants were more likely than control participants to also comply with the big request and to continue filling out environmental‐issues‐related questionnaires. However, this foot‐in‐the‐door effect occurred without diminishing behavioural costs or increasing attitude levels. Accordingly, the greater likelihood of small‐request‐compliant participants to also comply with the big request can be parsimoniously explained by baseline variability in people's attitude levels that manifests in their compliance with the initial request. We conclude that several of the foot‐in‐the‐door effects reported in the literature carry the risk of representing mere pseudo‐effects.