Getting the Big Picture in Community Science: Methods That Capture Context

Community science has a rich tradition of using theories and research designs that are consistent with its core value of contextualism. However, a survey of empirical articles published in the American Journal of Community Psychology shows that community scientists utilize a narrow range of statistical tools that are not well suited to assess contextual data. Multilevel modeling, geographic information systems (GIS), social network analysis, and cluster analysis are recommended as useful tools to address contextual questions in community science. An argument for increased methodological consilience is presented, where community scientists are encouraged to adopt statistical methodology that is capable of modeling a greater proportion of the data than is typical with traditional methods.     

Especial skills: their emergence with massive amounts of practice

Differing viewpoints concerning the specificity and generality of motor skill representations in memory were compared by contrasting versions of a skill having either extensive or minimal specific practice. In Experiments 1 and 2, skilled basketball players more accurately performed set shots at the foul line than would be predicted on the basis of the performance at the nearby locations, suggesting considerable specificity at this distance. This effect was replicated even when the lines on the court were obscured (in Experiment 2). However, the effect was absent when jump shots were executed in Experiment 3. The authors argue that massive levels of practice at 1 particular member of a class of actions produce specific effects that allow this skill to stand out from the other members of the class, giving it the status of an especial skill. Various theoretical views are proposed to account for the development of these skills.     

Individual Accountability in Cooperative Learning Groups at the College Level: Differential Effects on High,Average, and Low Exam Performers

Over a three-semester period in a large undergraduate human development course, students were assigned to 5–7 member groups to work together in preparing for an exam in one of the five content units in the course. Their exam performance was tracked over three units: a baseline unit in which students worked only individually, a unit in which they worked in cooperative teams, and a follow-up unit in which the formal cooperative team structure was removed. Three different bonus-credit contingencies were used in the cooperative learning unit across the three semesters: (a) awarding full bonus credit to each individual in the group if the group as a whole improved its exam performance by the specified amount, (b) awarding partial bonus credit to each individual in the group if the group as a whole improved it exam performance by the specified amount and full bonus credit to each individual who also improved by the specified amount, and (c) awarding full bonus credit to an individual in the group if both the group and the individual improved exam performance by the specified amount. The three contingencies produced somewhat similar patterns of change for low and average performers, but the high performers fared better under the last two contingencies than under the group-only contingency.     

Cultural Differences in Belief Bias Associated with Deductive Reasoning?

Norenzayan, Smith, Jun Kim, and Nisbett (2002) investigated cultural differences in the use of intuitive versus formal reasoning in 4 experiments. Our comment concerns the 4th experiment where Norenzayan et al. reported that, although there were no cultural differences in accuracy on abstract logical arguments, Koreans made more errors than U.S. undergraduates in judging the logical validity of concrete arguments. Norenzayan et al. concluded that Koreans are less likely than European Americans to decontextualize an argument's content from its logical structure, as Koreans were more likely to consider the believability of the conclusion when assessing an argument's validity (a belief bias). Notably, Korean participants were more conservative (less likely to say an argument is valid) than European American participants when assessing arguments. An analysis of the average of the hit and correct rejection rates in each of the conditions (abstract, concrete–believable, concrete–nonbelievable) revealed that, contrary to conclusions of Norenzayan et al., European Americans were no better than Koreans at determining the validity of concrete deductive arguments with conclusions varying in believability.     

Field reliability of comprehensive system scoring in an adolescent inpatient sample

The extent to which the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach is reliably scored has been a topic of some controversy. Although several studies have concluded it can be scored reliably in research settings, little is known about its reliability in field settings. This study evaluated the reliability of both response-level codes and protocol-level scores among 84 adolescent psychiatric inpatients in a clinical setting. Rorschachs were originally administered and scored for clinical purposes. Among response codes, 87% demonstrated acceptable reliability(> .60), and most coefficients exceeded .80. Results were similar for protocol-level scores, with only one score demonstrating less than adequate reliability. The findings are consistent with previous evidence, indicating reliable scoring is possible even in field settings.     

Reliability and Validity Evaluation of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) in Swedish correctional and forensic psychiatric samples

This study evaluated the structural reliability, construct-related validity, and cultural validity generalization of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) in a sample of more than 560 male and female Swedish forensic psychiatric treatment patients, forensic evaluation patients, and criminal offenders. Structural reliability was excellent for most indices. PCL:SV scores were higher for males than females for total and Part 1 scores (interpersonal/affective features) but not for Part 2 (behavioral features). With some exceptions, PCL:SV scores were meaningfully related to aggression to others, a measure of risk for violence, substance use problems, personality disorder (positive), and psychosis (negative). Correlations between PCL:SV and aggression were larger for females than males, although the difference was smaller when personality disorder was held constant. The structural reliability and pattern of validity coefficients were comparable in these Swedish samples to other non-North American samples. Implications for the cross-cultural manifestation and correlates of psychopathy are discussed.     

Pediatric do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders and public schools: a national assessment of policies and laws

Some children living with life-shortening medical conditions may wish to attend school without the threat of having resuscitation attempted in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest on the school premises. Despite recent attention to in-school do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, no assessment of state laws or school policies has yet been made. We therefore sought to survey a national sample of prominent school districts and situate their policies in the context of relevant state laws. Most (80%) school districts sampled did not have policies, regulations, or protocols for dealing with student DNARs. A similar majority (76%) either would not honor student DNARs or were uncertain about whether they could. Frequent contradictions between school policies and state laws also exist. Consequently, children living with life-shortening conditions who have DNARs may not have these orders honored if cardiopulmonary arrest were to occur on school premises. Coordinated efforts are needed to harmonize school district, state, and federal approaches in order to support children and families' right to have important medical decisions honored.