Geometrical representation of two methods of linear least squares multiple correlation

Geometrical properties and relationships of the Doolittle and square root methods of multiple correlation, as represented in the variable subspace of an orthogonal person space, are shown. The method of representation is also useful for depicting zero-order and partial correlations, as well as for the more general problem of the combination of variables.     

A cognitive probability model for learning

A quantitative model for the behavior of albino rats in choice-making situations is presented. The model, which is based upon a cognitive conceptualization of the learning process, is shown to yield predictions which are equivalent to those produced by the linear operator stochastic models at the asymptotic limit but which differ from these during early trials in the learning situation.     

Some multiple correlation and predictor selection methods

The Doolittle, Wherry-Doolittle, and Summerfield-Lubin methods of multiple correlation are compared theoretically as well as by an application in which a set of predictors is selected. Wherry's method and the Summerfield-Lubin method are shown to be equivalent; the relationship of these methods to the Doolittle method is indicated. The Summerfield-Lubin method, because of its compactness and ease of computation, and because of the meaningfulness of the interim computational values, is recommended as a convenient least squares method of multiple correlation and predictor selection.     

The pastor and his privacy

Pastoral Psychology -     

Like and cross modality responses in normal and subnormal children

Experiments which investigated response behaviour in imbeciles and normals, in a conflict situation between a general verbal instruction and direct stimuli, were carried out. It was found that combined verbal-motor responses did not give better results than either verbal or motor responses alone. Results in accordance with the general instruction were significantly better if the subnormal children responded in a different modality from the one in which the signals were given. While normals and imbeciles differed markedly in their ability to perform the tasks in like-modality trials, this difference was less apparent in cross modality responses.