Validation of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Hellvin, T., Sundet, K.,Vaskinn, A., Simonsen, C.,Ueland, T., Andreassen, O.A. & Melle, I. (2010). Validation of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51, 525–533. Studies of social functioning in severe mental disorders are disadvantaged by the multitude of different assessment instruments in use. The present study aims to establish reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) and to examine social functioning in bipolar disorder (BD) compared to schizophrenia (SZ) and healthy controls (HC). SFS, a 76 item questionnaire divided into seven subscales measuring various aspects of daily life functioning, was administered to samples diagnosed with BD (n = 100) or SZ (n = 100) and to HC (n = 100), recruited from the ongoing Tematic Organized Psychosis (TOP) study. Reliability analyses prove adequate psychometric properties both for the composite full scale score (α: 0.81) as well as for the seven subscale scores (α: 0.60–0.88). Principal component analysis of the subscales confirms a one‐component structure, explaining 59% of the variance. Although significantly correlated with the Global Assessment of Functioning, our results indicate that the SFS measures different aspects of social functioning, is less influenced by demographic and clinical characteristics, but differentiates at the same time significantly BD from SZ. Thus, SFS adds valuable information as a supplement to standard clinician‐rated assessment tools of social functioning, suited both for research and clinical work.     

The Issue of Motivating Entre(Intra)Preneurial Behavior

ABSTRACT The issue of motivating entre(intra)preneurial behavior is one of great importance to any society. The problem is that motivating human behavior is really not possible. Human behavior is motivated all the time; the real issue is to structure a business climate that fosters and rewards the excitement, enthusiasm and experimentation that accompanies entre(intra)preneurial behavior. A basic understanding of organizational climate, behavioral modification and the “deviant” behavior that makeup entre(intra) preneurial behavior can develop and nurture the joy and passion necessary for economics and human growth. The issue of restrictive environments and the role of staff groups in restricting creative, innovative entre(intra)preneurial behavior is one a leader-manager must be aware. The need for a more nearly accurate definition of entre(intra)preneur is one of the first hurdles to overcome in researching the issue of guiding entre(intra)preneurial behavior. There is a paradox in speaking or writing about motivating any kind of behavior, but especially, motivating entrepreneurial behavior. At the very outset, it should be very clear that academicians and practitioners who speak of “motivating” anyone are purely and simply dead wrong in the use of the term. Living human beings are motivated all the time. A much more comfortable way of discussing the issue is to speak about guiding or shaping motivated behavior. Then it is possible to research, comment and discuss the ways in which entrepreneurial or intrapreneurial behavior can be fostered, encouraged, guided or shaped. The issues and themes of many presentations on entrepreneurial and/or intrapreneurial behavior that are presented in textbooks, articles and symposia frequently begin with some discussion of the personality characteristics or the motivation of entre(intra)-preneurs, implying that these characteristics are narrowly distributed in the general population. Elsewhere (Winslow, 1984) I have speculated that innovation and creativity are widely distributed in the normal population, not narrowly, and further I would argue that non-innovative and non-creative behaviors are a maladjustment in humans brought on by the healthy ability of most of us to adapt and adjust to our environment. Herzberg (1982) has commented that … “all human behavior is adjusted behavior, therefore, all human behavior adjusts away from what is naturally healthy behavior.” In effect, all of us have adjusted away from normality, therefore, none of us are normal. An extension of this idea leads to the conclusion that all cultures choose the pathology, or the abnormal behavior, that will be defined as normal for that society. I believe that one of the fundamental motivations of human beings is to pursue their own growth in competence, skill and creativity; to act upon the world rather than to react to the world; and to shape the environment as well as be shaped by their surroundings. The human being operates always within this dilemma — “human behavior is influenced (shaped) by the environment, but it is an environment created and developed by human beings,” (Skinner, 1971). The above could lead to a discussion of whether the natural, normal, pristine human being is good or evil, a discussion of the importance of nature over nurture, or more directly to the more mundane central topic of this paper. One of the most creative current observers of organizational behavior, Peter Vaill (1985), has pointed out, that “behavioral scientists have a common trait, that is, they believe the art of applied behavioral sciences is the art of making lists.” I frequently define myself as an applied behavioral scientist, therefore, I will present my list of observations on Motivating (Shaping) Entre(Intra)preneurial Behavior.

• 1 The climate, atmosphere or environment must be created to allow the expression of entre(intra)preneurial activity.
• 2 The drive, motivation or spirit of entre(intra)-preneurship is broadly distributed in the general population.
• 3 Behavior is a function of its consequences (Skinner, 1971).
• 4 Entre(intra)preneurial environments have an aura of excitement, suspended belief and an impertenence toward conventional wisdom.
• 5 The entre(intra)preneurial activity, tested against “standard” behavior or conventional organizational policy frequently appears as deviant behavior.
• 6 The terms entre(intra)preneur are used very loosely and are becoming useless in discussing innovation, behavior, economic and/or organizational activity.

     

ON THE COHERENCE OF HIGHER‐ORDER BELIEFS

Let us by ‘first‐order beliefs’ mean beliefs about the world, such as the belief that it will rain tomorrow, and by ‘second‐order beliefs’ let us mean beliefs about the reliability of first‐order, belief‐forming processes. In formal epistemology, coherence has been studied, with much ingenuity and precision, for sets of first‐order beliefs. However, to the best of our knowledge, sets including second‐order beliefs have not yet received serious attention in that literature. In informal epistemology, by contrast, sets of the latter kind play an important role in some respectable coherence theories of knowledge and justification. In this paper, we extend the formal treatment of coherence to second‐order beliefs. Our main conclusion is that while extending the framework to second‐order beliefs sheds doubt on the generality of the notorious impossibility results for coherentism, another problem crops up that might be no less damaging to the coherentist project: facts of coherence turn out to be epistemically accessible only to agents who have a good deal of insight into matters external to their own belief states.