Units of analysis and item statistics for environmental assessment scales

Choice of units of analysis is a critical problem in evaluating environmental assessment items. The “Ecological Fallacy” involves interpreting results based on ecological entities, such as environmental settings, as applying to individuals. A less familiar error, the “Individual Differences Fallacy,” involves interpreting results based on individuals as applying to settings. Although this second error has been ubiquitous, little is known about the empirical consequences of using different units of analysis in item analysis. This study examined this issue when the units were (1) individuals, (2) observed settings, or (3) “artificial” or random settings. Neither item validities based on individuals nor item validities based on settings yielded unequivocal results. However, a measure developed specifically for environmental research, the Split-Sample Correlation, appeared useful for identifying environmental items. Researchers constructing environmental assessment scales should select items with both high Split-Sample Correlations and high setting-level item validities.     

Where and Why g Matters:Not a Mystery

g is a highly general capability for processing complex information of any type. This explains its great value in predicting job performance. Complexity is the major distinction among jobs, which explains why g is more important further up the occupational hierarchy. The predictive validities of g are moderated by the criteria and other predictors considered in selection research, but the resulting gradients of g's effects are systematic. The pattern provides personnel psychologists a road map for how to design better selection batteries. Despite much literature on the meaning and impact of g, there nonetheless remains an aura of mystery about where and why g cognitive tests might be useful in selection. The aura of mystery encourages false beliefs and false hopes about how we might reduce disparate impact in employee selection. It is also used to justify new testing techniques whose major effect, witting or not, is to reduce the validity of selection in the service of racial goals.     

Communal schools and teacher victimization

Despite data showing that teacher victimization is at least as great a problem as student victimization, far less research exists regarding teacher victimization than student victimization and overall school crime, particularly with regard to the application of criminological theory to explain the victimization of teachers. We address this gap by examining the hierarchical relationship between communal school organization and teacher victimization in a nationally representative sample of 37,497 teachers from 7,488 public schools in the United States. Results showed that teacher experienced less victimization in schools that were more communally organized. We discuss these findings and present implications for school-based delinquency prevention.