Relationships Among Dogmatism,Family Ideology,and Religiosity in Master's-Level Counseling Students

This paper presents the results of a survey of the perceptions of master's-level counseling students in the areas of dogmatism, family ideology, and religiosity. Participants in the study consisted of 331 master's-level counseling students from 7 master's-level counselor education programs in northern, southern, and eastern regions of the United States. A total of 142 participants were classified as beginning participants, and 123 were classified as graduating participants. Findings indicated that graduating participants were significantly lower in levels of dogmatism than were beginning participants. Bivariate and multivariate data analyses also revealed that family ideology was more strongly related to dogmatism than religiosity.     

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF META-ANALYTIC RESEARCH: A COMMENT ON SCHMITT, GOODING, NOE, AND KIRSCH (1984)

This comment shows that the conclusion of Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, and Kirsch (1984) that their meta-analytic findings are inconsistent with earlier validity generalization work is in error. The findings in their study that less variance than previously reported was due to sampling error are a result of their larger average sample sizes. Their claim that, after sampling error variance was accounted for, much unexplained variance remained, is incorrect. This error is demonstrated to be a result of their exclusive concentration on percentages and consequent failure to examine amount of observed and residual variance.     

ESTIMATION OF EMPLOYMENT VALIDITIES BY LESS EXPERIENCED JUDGES

In a previous study, Schmidt, Hunter, Croll and McKenzie (1983) demonstrated that estimates of the validity of cognitive tests made by highly trained and experienced judges are more accurate than empirical estimates obtained from small-sample validity studies. The present study examined whether less experienced judges could also produce accurate estimates. Twenty-eight recent Ph.D.'s in I/O Psychology estimated observed validities for the same 54 job-test combinations used by Schmidt et al. (1983). The estimates of these judges contained about twice as much random error as the experts' estimates. Systematic error of the less experienced judges was also greater than that of the experts (.0732 vs .019). The systematic errors of the two sets of judges were in opposite directions: less experienced judges overestimated validities, on average, while experts underestimated them. The results show that the estimates of less experienced judges contain less information than those of experts, but also that averages of estimates of several less experienced judges are as accurate as those obtained from small-sample empirical studies.     

Elizabeth Adele Greenleaf: Having Some Fun Getting the Job Done

Elizabeth Adele Greenleaf, professor and coordinator of College Student Personnel Administration at Indiana University, made significant contributions to the development of the student affairs profession through her leadership as an educator, administrator, and mentor.     

On the Boundary: Family Therapy in a Long-Term Inpatient Setting

This paper presents a paradigm of family therapy in a long-term inpatient setting. After reviewing literature commenting on the necessity of attending to the needs of families of inpatients, the essential functions of inpatient treatment are discussed and an approach to family therapy, related to and reflecting those functions, is developed. Four functions of inpatient family therapy are delineated: joining, support, intervention, and validation. What distinguishes these from similar functions in outpatient treatment is the family therapist's position on the hospital-family boundary.     

An Examination of the Variables Related to Minority Youth Employment

This study involves an examination of the postprogram experiences of youth in the National Urban League Youth Career Development Project. It seeks to identify those factors responsible for helping some participants secure and maintain employment. Likewise, it attempts to determine impediments for participants who either never found employment or found employment but were unable to retain their jobs.     

A WITHIN SETTING EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION

The situational specificity hypothesis of selection procedure validity makes two predictions. The first is that variation in observed validities across settings is caused by real differences in what constitutes job performance. Validity generalization studies to date have provided disconfirming evidence for this prediction by showing that the observed variation is due to statistical and measurement artifacts. The second prediction is that if the situation (i.e., the organization, the setting, the job, the test and the criterion) is held constant, then validity findings will not vary from study to study. This article tests this prediction empirically using data from a unique series of studies reported by Bender and Loveless (1958). The results are contrary to the situational specificity hypothesis and consistent with the hypothesis that variation in observed validities is due to statistical and measurement artifacts that are unrelated to situations and settings. It is concluded that both major predictions of the situational specificity hypothesis have now been empirically disconfirmed.