Early intervention in the family system: A framework and review

A framework for understanding the effect of early intervention on family structure and functioning is presented. The framework uses five sets of variables to characterize families: Their ecology; and the values, roles, personalities, and interactions of family members. Twenty research studies that met criteria of having comparison/control groups, beginning intervention either prenatally or during the first 3 months of infancy, and directing intervention to family functioning are abstracted and examined in detail. Successful and unsuccessful studies are compared as to population and nature of intervention. Two criteria of success are used: (1) The commonly used criterion of any positive change; (2) a more rigorous criterion of change in at least three areas of family functioning, based on the assumption that more pervasive change will have more lasting influence on child development. Application of the first criterion found that 75% of early family focused intervention studies showed a successful outcome. Application of the latter criterion found that 50% showed a successful outcome. Further, there were no significant differences between successful and unsuccessful studies as to target group or type of intervention. The review suggests that early intervention targeted at family functioning is effective and that a more pervasive and sustained effect is likely if the intervention includes at least 11 or more contacts over at least a 3-month period.     

Sellarsian Buddhism Comments on Jay Garfield, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy</Emphasis>

This paper critically examines Jay Garfield’s accounts of the self, consciousness, and phenomenology in his book, Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy. I argue that Garfield’s views on these topics are shaped, in problematic ways, by views he takes over from Wilfrid Sellars and applies to Buddhist philosophy.     

When is best-worst best? A comparison of best-worst scaling,numeric estimation,and rating scales for collection of semantic norms

Large-scale semantic norms have become both prevalent and influential in recent psycholinguistic research. However, little attention has been directed towards understanding the methodological best practices of such norm collection efforts. We compared the quality of semantic norms obtained through rating scales, numeric estimation, and a less commonly used judgment format called best-worst scaling. We found that best-worst scaling usually produces norms with higher predictive validities than other response formats, and does so requiring less data to be collected overall. We also found evidence that the various response formats may be producing qualitatively, rather than just quantitatively, different data. This raises the issue of potential response format bias, which has not been addressed by previous efforts to collect semantic norms, likely because of previous reliance on a single type of response format for a single type of semantic judgment. We have made available software for creating best-worst stimuli and scoring best-worst data. We also made available new norms for age of acquisition, valence, arousal, and concreteness collected using best-worst scaling. These norms include entries for 1,040 words, of which 1,034 are also contained in the ANEW norms (Bradley & Lang, Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (pp. 1-45). Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, University of Florida, 1999).     

Self‐ratings in Training Programs: An Examination of Level of Performance and the Effects of Feedback

The level of agreement (mean differences and correlations) between self, peer and training staff ratings were examined in this study. The sample consisted of 545 participants who were undertaking a Royal Australian Airforce officer training program. Consistent with previous research there was strong agreement between training staff and peers and weak agreement between self‐ratings and ratings by others (training staff and peers). Accuracy of ratings was examined by (a) comparing the mean ratings of outstanding, average and below‐average performers; and (b) correlating difference scores with a measure of performance. The findings showed that below‐average performers have a less accurate view of themselves compared to outstanding performers. Finally, we examined the effects of negative feedback on self‐perceptions. The analyses indicated that after receiving negative feedback, average performers adjusted their self‐ratings. Various explanations were proposed together with practical implications for training.