Factor structure of the basic personality inventory with incarcerated offenders

The item and scale factor structure of the Basic Personality Inventory (BPI) was examined in a sample of 486 offenders incarcerated for violent and sexual crimes. Separate principal-component analyses of the items for each of the 11 clinical scales, critical item scale, and social desirability scale indicated a one-dimensional factor solution for all scales except Depression and Persecutory Ideation. The Depression scale's two factors were Hopelessness and Depressive Affect and the Persecutory Ideation scale's two factors were General Paranoia and Perception of External Control. Although the factors for these two scales may assist in interpretation, the correlations between the factors and the total score of their respective scale were high. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 220 items from the 11 clinical scales supported the factorial logic of the scoring key. Analysis of the 11 clinical scales resulted in two factors: General Psychopathology/Adjustment and Antisocial Orientation. The results suggest that all but two scales can be viewed as unidimensional thereby allowing for a straightforward clinical interpretation. These analyses support the internal structure of the BPI and lend credence to external validity work with forensic populations.     

Case vignette: cybertherapy

Dr. Neuro Transmitter, a psychotherapist in Paramus, New Jersey, provides services through an online, real-time consultation service known as CyberShrink, Inc., of Dallas, Texas. He is paid by the hour for his consultation services to subscribers who are billed by credit card through CyberShrink. One afternoon he logs on and is connected via private "chat channel" to a new subscriber to the service. She is Ann Hedonia of Simi Valley, California. Ten minutes into the session, Dr Transmitter recognizes that Ms. Hedonia is seriously depressed with suicidal ideation and is feeling on the edge of her ability to cope. He gently suggests that perhaps she ought to think about hospitalization near her home. Ms. Hedonia replies, "Even you don't care about me! That's it. I'm going to do it!" and disconnects. Discussion questions: Is offering psychotherapy services online ethical? What are Dr. Transmitter's obligations in general and at this particular moment to Ms. Hedonia? Suppose Ms. Hedonia has a complaint about Dr. Transmitter. From whom can she seek a remedy? Which state's laws apply regarding professional practice, confidentiality, or licensing qualifications? Must Dr. Transmitter be licensed in any state to offer this service?     

A comparison of multiple versus single examples of the correct stimulus on task acquisition and generalization by persons with developmental disabilities

In teaching discriminations to persons with retardation, we often presume we will improve acquisition and generalization if we use multiple examples of boththe correct and incorrect stimuli. Two experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In the first experiment, 7 persons with moderate retardation learned to discriminate between functional words under two conditions. In one condition, Multiple Example of S- Only,1 example of the correct stimulus (S+) and 10 examples of the incorrect stimulus (S-) were used during acquisition. In the other condition, Multiple Examples of S+ and S-,10 examples of the S+ and 10 examples of the S- were used. Results showed that the condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior 16 times and inferior 4 times during acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. A second experiment was conducted to (a) replicate the methodology and procedures in Experiment 1 with different participants, (b) determine whether the results were replicable, and (c) obtain efficiency data. Results replicated the findings of the first experiment. The condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior on measures of (a) trials to criterion, (b) percent correct during acquisition, and (c) minutes to criterion. On measures of generalization, the two conditions were relatively equal. Thus, the condition which presented only a single example of the correct stimulus was more efficient and was just as effective in generalization as the condition which presented multiple examples of both the S+ and S-. These surprising results were discussed in terms of stimulus control, why students performed just as well during generalization when only one example of the S+ was used, why acquisition was also poorer for this condition, and how future studies might address these points.     

Correction of errors in scientific research

Four ways to reduce scientific errors are by tests of equipment and programs, examination of results, peer review, and replication. This article describes various types of errors that may occur and procedures available for the prevention and correction of both unintentional and intentional errors in experiments that use computer programs to generate the stimuli, record the responses, or analyze the data. We describe a case study of a particular experiment that produced a result that has been found to be erroneous. The case study provides additional evidence of the essential importance of replication for the identification and elimination of scientific error.     

Prepulse effects on magnitude estimation of startle-eliciting stimuli and startle responses

The present studies investigated the relationship between prepulse effects on the modification of the brainstem startle reflex and magnitude estimates of startle-eliciting stimuli. In Experiment 1, startle eyeblink responses were elicited in 24 students, half of whom were instructed to estimate the loudness of the startle stimulus (actual intensities of 80, 90, and 100 dB) and half of whom were instructed to estimate the magnitude of their eyeblink. When weak acoustic prepulses preceded the startle-eliciting stimulus, eyeblink amplitude was inhibited, and estimates of response magnitude decreased, but estimates of startle stimulus magnitude decreased only when 100-dB startle stimuli were presented. In Experiment 2, the same startle stimuli were preceded on some trials by a vibrotactile prepulse to the hand. In conditions in which startle amplitude was inhibited, startle stimulus magnitude estimates were not affected. This suggests that the effect of acoustic prepulses on 100-dB startle stimuli in Experiment 1 may have been due to loudness assimilation, an effect independent of the prepulse inhibition of startle responding.     

Reduction of the elevator illusion from continued hypergravity exposure and visual error-corrective feedback

Ten subjects served as their own controls in two conditions of continuous, centrifugally produced hypergravity (+2 Gz) and a 1-G control condition. Before and after exposure, open-loop measures were obtained of (1) motor control, (2) visual localization, and (3) hand-eye coordination. During exposure in the visual feedback/hypergravity condition, subjects received terminal visual error-corrective feedback from their target pointing, and in the no-visual feedback/hypergravity condition they pointed open loop. As expected, the motor control measures for both experimental conditions revealed very short lived underreaching (the muscle-loading effect) at the outset of hypergravity and an equally transient negative aftereffect on returning to 1 G. The substantial (approximately 17°) initial elevator illusion experienced in both hypergravity conditions declined over the course of the exposure period, whether or not visual feedback was provided. This effect was tentatively attributed to habituation of the otoliths. Visual feedback produced a smaller additional decrement and a postexposure negative aftereffect, possible evidence for visual recalibration. Surprisingly, the target-pointing error made during hypergravity in the no-visual-feedback condition was substantially less than that predicted by subjects’ elevator illusion. This finding calls into question the neural outflow model as a complete explanation of this illusion.