Convergent Validity of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale for Youth in Community Mental Health Settings     

Matthew C. Lambert  Stacy-Ann A. January  Michael H. Epstein  Mary Spooner  Tesfayi Gebreselassie  Robert L. Stephens 《Journal of child and family studies》2015,24(12):3827-3832

  相似文献   

On the Mahāyāna and Wittgenstein     

Chris Gudmunsen 《Religion》2013,43(2):96-103

  相似文献   

    

Chris Kaposy 《The American journal of bioethics : AJOB》2013,13(8):34-36

  相似文献   

    

Chris Ward 《当代佛教》2013,14(2):171-177

  相似文献   

    

Jessica E. Lambert 《Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma》2013,22(6):681-683

  相似文献   

    

Chris Lawn 《British Journal for the History of Philosophy》2013,21(2):354-357

  相似文献   

    

Keely A. Dugan  Randi L. Vogt  Anqing Zheng  Omri Gillath  Pascal R. Deboeck  R. Chris Fraley  D. A. Briley 《Journal of personality》2024,92(1):130-146

  相似文献   

    

Chris Tucker 《No?s (Detroit, Mich.)》2023,57(2):454-480

The (moral) permissibility of an act is determined by the relative weights of reasons, or so I assume. But how many weights does a reason have? Weight Monism is the idea that reasons have a single weight value. There is just the weight of reasons. The simplest versions hold that the weight of each reason is either weightier than, less weighty than, or equal to every other reason. We'll see that this simple view leads to paradox in at least two ways. We must complicate the picture somehow. I consider two candidate complications. The first, Parity Monism, is inspired by Ruth Chang's suggestion that parity is a fourth comparative beyond the traditional three (>, <, =). This view complicates the single weight relation by allowing that the weights of reasons can be on a par. Unfortunately, Parity Monism resolves only one of the two paradoxes that afflict simple versions of Weight Monism. To resolve both paradoxes, we need our second candidate complication, Weight Pluralism. This view holds that reasons have at least two weight values (e.g., justifying weight and requiring weight) and these two values aren't always equivalent. Parity is no substitute for Pluralism.  相似文献   

    

Robert Mclean  Chris Holligan  Iain McPhee 《Deviant behavior》2019,40(5):485-497

Understanding Scotland’s illegal drug market continues to challenge social scientists. Most evidently neglected are processes related to social supply, from supplier perspectives. When analyzing illegal drug markets, demand-based approaches, customarily sourcing drug users, grossly overlook supplier perspectives. Thus, a qualitative research inquiry interviewing former drug dealers facilitated exploration of a supply-based approach that detailed processes of supply in relation to market level. Situating the findings within the disruptive lens of Chatwin and Potters’ (2014) concept of extending drug use normalization to embrace a dimension of market fluidity to drug supply dealing in Scotland, the researchers interviewed 35 former drug suppliers, learning about drug distribution behavioral patterns. Retail-level dealerships and higher market echelons exemplified an embodiment of the complexity of this social world. Any model aimed at characterizing Scotland’s illegal drugs market must acknowledge and incorporate aspects of social supply (e.g., recreational drugs) and recognize the fluid nature of “normalization,” taking account into its tacit embeddedness in a “local economy” with its own history and distinctive cultural geography. Unless the nuances of these various social formations are acknowledged, the potential of national policing strategies to address the crimes connected with drugs will go unrealized due to their conceptual and pragmatic inadequacies. It is ironic that a commitment to a generalized drug market conception of official enforcement is likely to sow the seeds for an unnecessary criminalization of minor serendipitous offenders and encourage reoffending patterns.  相似文献   

    

Jenny Retzler  Samantha Johnson  Madeleine Groom  Chris Hollis  Helen Budge  Lucy Cragg 《Child neuropsychology》2019,25(5):617-635

Inattention is one of the most common neurobehavioral problems following very preterm birth. Attention problems can persist into adulthood and are associated with negative socio-emotional and educational outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether the cognitive processes associated with inattention differ between term-born and very preterm children. Sixty-five children born very preterm (<33+0 weeks’ gestation) aged 8–11 years were recruited alongside 48 term-born controls (?37 20 +0 weeks’ gestation). Both groups included children with a wide spectrum of parent-rated inattention (above average attention to severe inattention) measured as a continuous dimension using the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD and Normal-Behavior (SWAN) scale. The children completed tests to assess basic cognitive processes and executive function. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was implemented to assess which neurocognitive processes explained variance in parent-rated inattention and whether these differed between preterm and term-born children. In both groups, poorer verbal and visuospatial short-term memory and poorer visuospatial working memory independently explained variance in parent-rated inattention. Slower motor processing speed explained variance in inattention among very preterm children only. The cognitive mechanisms associated with parent-rated inattention were predominantly overlapping between groups, but relationships between motor processing speed and inattention were unique to very preterm children. These associations may reflect risk factors for inattention in term and very preterm children. Future research should assess the efficacy of these cognitive processes as potential targets for intervention  相似文献