The impact of drug screening on selection decisions

This paper discusses the use of drug screening for employee selection decisions. Common methods of drug screening are described, and a recent study of drug screening accuracy is summarized. It is argued that drug screening is subject to the same standards as are other selection procedures, and that human resource professionals must assume responsibility for understanding the potential problems associated with drug screening. Issues relevant to determining the benefits of drug screening are discussed, and an illustration of the impact of drug screening on decision accuracy is presented. It is suggested that, in many instances, the value of drug screening in the selection process may be low enough to warrant serious concern. Implications for human resource research and practice are noted.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in New York; August 31, 1987. The authors would like to thank Michael Bramel for his assistance in locating and summarizing some of the medical literature cited, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.     

The physiology of the tunnel

Several theories to account for the origin of tunnel hallucinations and tunnel experiences near death are considered: (1) the idea of a real tunnel; (2) representations of transition; (3) reliving birth memories; (4) imagination; and (5) physiological origins. Three different physiological theories are considered that related the tunnel form to the structure of the visual cortex. All can account for much of the phenomenology of the tunnel experience, and all lead to testable predictions. It is argued that the tunnel experience involves a change in the mental model of the self in the world. Because of this, an experience of purely physiological origin, with no implications for other worlds or for survival, can nevertheless produce lasting changes in the sense of self and reduce the fear of death.     

Countering perfectionism in research on clinical practice I: Surveying rationality changes after a single intensive ret intervention

The failure of controlled experimental research on therapy out-come to produce findings of clinical as well as statistical significance seems at least partly due to irrational, perfectionistic, beliefs about how research can be used to infer causes of therapeutic change. Irrational beliefs about controlled experimental designs and about incomplete sampling, in particular, appear to prevent appropriate consideration of probatively valuable quasi-experimental research. Models of more rational alternatives are identified, and an example of the functional advantages of adopting these rational beliefs is explicated. The example demonstrates that single-shot pre-post survey data from self-selected catch-as-catch-can samples can permit legitimate, but not absolutely certain, conclusions about the efficacy and efficiency of RET.Albert Ellis, Ph.D. is executive director of the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy in New York City.     

Setting and response generalization in rational-emotive therapy: A case study

A single case study (n=1) conducted during therapy investigated the relationship between disputing irrational beliefs in vivo and setting and response generalization. Irrational beliefs associated with the subject's anger and depression were disputed at different intervals over a ten week period utilizing a multiple baseline design across four classes in a school setting (setting 1). Depression and anger were rated several times each week. The subject's level of anxiety was also rated in setting 1 but the irrational beliefs associated with it were not disputed. Anger, depression, and anxiety were rated without disputation in a separate work setting (setting 2). Affect ratings significantly decreased across both settings throughout the ten week period. Results indicated that 1) disputing irrational beliefs associated with anger and depression in setting 1 led to reductions in anxiety in this setting (response generalization), 2) anger and depression reductions in setting 2 paralleled setting 1 reductions (setting generalization), and 3) anxiety reductionsWilliam J. Ruth, PhD, Staff Psychologist and practicum supervisor, Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, NY City; School Psychologist, Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Southern Westchester.Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, ABPP, Director of Training and Research, Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, NY City; Graduate Professor, St. John's University, NY City; co-author,Practitioner's Guide to Rational-Emotive Therapy and RET with Alcoholics and Substance Abusers.