JOB-RELATEDNESS OF A POSTTRAINING JOB KNOWLEDGE CRITERION USE TO ASSESS VALIDITY AND TEST FAIRNESS

Significant job-relatedness was found for a posttraining job knowledge test criterion using an application of Lawshe's content validity method. The aide test was used as a criterion to assess the predictive validity of a vocabulary test and a civil service test with samples of black ( N = 43) and white ( N = 62) psychiatric aides. Significant validities were found on both tests, but a vocabulary test proved to be the better predictor of the criterion in both samples. The obtained validities were discussed in terms of differential validity, test fairness, and sample size. This study demonstrated that a content validity method could be applied to criteria as well as selection tests. It was concluded that content validity methods may be able to help solve the problem of criterion relevance in validation research by providing quantitative evidence of the job-relatedness of criteria.     

Models of helping and coping, responsibility attributions, and well-being in community elderly and their helpers

The analysis of Brickman et al. (1982), which separates attribution of a problem's cause and solution, was tested in 4 studies. Young and elderly adults' (n = 210) well-being was related only to taking responsibility for solutions. The elderly compared with the young adults assumed less responsibility for problem cause and solution. They also preferred helping and coping models that assume low self-responsibility for solutions (e.g., medical model). This result was replicated with Meals on Wheels clients (n = 51). An intragenerational helping pattern was found in Study 3. Lay helpers (n = 63) helped mainly same-age recipients. Elderly and middle-aged helpers compared with young adults preferred using a medical model. Overall, a cohort bias in model preference was suggested. In Study 4, problem type and recipient age moderated attributions and model choice of young and middle-aged Ss (n = 92). Relevance to the control literature and ethical and clinical implications of a medical-model bias are discussed.     

Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development

This multimethod research linked the Big-Five personality dimensions to interpersonal conflict in childhood. Agreeableness was the personality dimension of focus because this dimension has been associated with maintaining positive interpersonal relations in adolescents and adults. In two studies, elementary school children were assessed on the Big-Five domains of personality. Study 1 (n=276) showed that agreeableness was uniquely associated with endorsements of conflict resolution tactics in children as well as parent and teacher reports of coping and adjustment. Study 2 (n=234) revealed that children's perceptions of themselves and others during conflict was influenced by their agreeableness regardless of their partner's agreeableness. Observers also reported that pairs higher in agreeableness had more harmonious, constructive conflicts. Overall findings suggest that of the Big-Five dimensions, agreeableness is most closely associated with processes and outcomes related to interpersonal conflict and adjustment in children.     

COHERENTISM AND THE EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION OF MORAL BELIEFS: A CASE STUDY IN HOW TO DO PRACTICAL ETHICS WITHOUT APPEAL TO A MORAL THEORY

This paper defends a coherentist approach to moral epistemology. In “The Immorality of Eating Meat” (2000), I offer a coherentist consistency argument to show that our own beliefs rationally commit us to the immorality of eating meat. Elsewhere, I use our own beliefs as premises to argue that we have positive duties to assist the poor (2004) and to argue that biomedical animal experimentation is wrong (2012). The present paper explores whether this consistency‐based coherentist approach of grounding particular moral judgments on beliefs we already hold, with no appeal to moral theory, is a legitimate way of doing practical ethics. I argue (i) that grounding particular moral judgments on our core moral convictions and other core nonmoral beliefs is a legitimate way to justify moral judgments, (ii) that these moral judgments possess as much epistemic justification and have as much claim to objectivity as moral judgments grounded on particular ethical theories, and (iii) that this internalistic coherentist method of grounding moral judgments is more likely to result in behavioral guidance than traditional theory‐based approaches to practical ethics. By way of illustrating the approach, I briefly recapitulate my consistency‐based argument for ethical vegetarianism. I then defend the coherentist approach implicit in the argument against a number of potentially fatal metatheoretical attacks.