Coalition formation: Political attitudes and power

In this study 2 theories have been tested: Minimum Range theory (de Swaan, 1970; Leierson, 1970) and Minimal Resource theory (Caplow, 1956; Riker, 1962; Gamson, 1964). In an experimental simulation (Runkel and McGrath, 1972)political attitudes (left, centre and right) and power differences (40 seats in parliament, 30 seats and 20 seats) have been induced. The results suggest that in the beginning of the bargaining process people communicate about the composition of the coalition programme. The minimal range theory may explain this behaviour: parties with more similar ideological interests do coalesce. Later on, one more often bargains about the division of the outcomes, i.e. portfolios. Minimum Resource theory only partly explains the formed coalitions. Minimal winning coalitions, which are predicted by Minimum Resource theory, are formed more often within centre-left-coalitions. This is not the case for centre-right-coalitions. It is discussed that the link between the parity norm and minimal winning coalitions, which is assumed by Minimum Resource theory, possiblv does not hold in this experiment. The parity norm being used by right together with centres strong position leads to the frequent occurrence of minimal winning centre-left-coalitions.     

The analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices via constrained components analysis

Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) matrices are often analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). However, fitting MTMM models often leads to improper solutions, or non-convergence. In an attempt to overcome these problems, various alternative CFA models have been proposed, but with none of these the problem of finding improper solutions was solved completely. In the present paper, an approach is proposed where improper solutions are ruled out altogether and convergence is guaranteed. The approach is based on constrained variants of components analysis (CA). Besides the fact that these methods do not give improper solutions, they have the advantage that they provide component scores which can later on be used to relate the components to external variables. The new methods are illustrated by means of simulated data, as well as empirical data sets.This research has been made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the first author. The authors are obliged to three anonymous reviewers and an associate editor for constructive suggestions on the first version of this paper.     

Re-Evaluating Professional Autonomy in Health Care

Professional autonomy, as the symbol of the traditional freedom ofdecision-making of medical professionals is criticized. This essayexamines the critique. It analyses the underlying assumption that theautonomy of health professionals is incompatible with the need fororganisation and management in order to control rising health carecosts. It is argued that the concept of professional autonomy should beredefined, not through restricting the decision-making freedom ofindividual health professionals, but through expanding the concept intothe sphere of management, so that managers will take responsibility forpatient care.     

Psychiatric nurses' experiences with inpatient aggression

Using a survey instrument, the experiences of psychiatric nurses with inpatient aggression were investigated in East London, U.K. On this “Perceptions of Prevalence Of Aggression Scale” (POPAS), annual experiences with 15 types of disruptive and aggressive behavior were rated anonymously. Staff members were also asked to disclose the number of days missed from work due to inpatient violence. On the basis of these POPAS forms, internal consistency of the instrument, mean reported aggression frequencies, and days missed from work due to violence were calculated. Internal consistency of the POPAS appeared to be reasonable. Verbal abuse and threats were experienced by most of the psychiatric nurses during a one‐year period (i.e., by about 80–90 percent of nurses). Sexual harassment or intimidation was also experienced relatively often on an annual basis (68 percent), particularly by female and young staff members. A minority of staff members (i.e., 16 percent) had experienced severe physical violence. Although not prevalent, this type of behavior was most strongly connected with reporting sick. In particular, staff members working with involuntarily admitted patients experienced much (severe) violence during their work. Although the validity of estimates of aggression prevalence with the POPAS instrument needs to be investigated further, such a survey may be helpful in gaining insight rather quickly into the level of day‐to‐day contact with aggressive behavior. Also, since information on verbal, physical, and sexual violence, and on days missed from work, can be provided anonymously, this rather delicate, but essential management information, may be accessed relatively easily with the POPAS. Aggr. Behav. 00:000–000, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The experiences of therapists using a new client‐centred psychometric instrument,PSYCHLOPS (Psychological Outcome Profiles)

PSYCHLOPS (‘Psychological Outcome Profiles’) is a newly developed client‐generated psychometric instrument which can be used as an outcome measure. Uniquely, it asks clients to state their own problems, in their own words. As part of its validation, we used it alongside an existing measure, CORE‐OM (‘Clinical Outcomes Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure’). Based on a qualitative methodology, we report here on the first‐hand experiences of four therapists using both instruments. The key themes that emerged from therapists’ responses were feasibility, validity and usefulness. Both questionnaires were perceived as complementing each other, the qualitative information from PSYCHLOPS balancing the quantitative information from CORE‐OM and that both could contribute to the therapist‐client interaction. The key features of PSYCHLOPS are likely to prove attractive to therapists and should increase acceptance and uptake of outcome measures.     

On the relationship between sources of within- and between-group differences and measurement invariance in the common factor model

Investigating sources of within- and between-group differences and measurement invariance (MI) across groups is fundamental to any meaningful group comparison based on observed test scores. It is shown that by placing certain restrictions on the multigroup confirmatory factor model, it is possible to investigate the hypothesis that within- and between-group differences are due to the same factors. Moreover, the modeling approach clarifies that absence of measurement bias implies common sources of within- and between-group variation. It is shown how the influence of background variables can be incorporated in the model. The advantages of the modeling approach as compared with other commonly used methods for group comparisons is discussed and illustrated by means of an analysis of empirical data.     

The Use of Safety Suitability Tests for The Assessment of Immigrant and Majority Group Job Applicants

Safety jobs, meaning jobs where employees are responsible for the safety of customers, other employees and/or public in general are of special importance for our present society and deserve continued attention from I/O psychologists. The central question addressed in this study is whether the scores on safety suitability tests are comparable for immigrants and majority group members. Use was made of test data on first‐generation immigrants (N=786) and majority group members (N=584) who applied for blue collar jobs at the Dutch Railways and at regional bus companies. The tests used measured selective attention, attentional speed, continuous attention, perceptual‐motor ability and general mental ability. Immigrants' mean scores are systematically below the level of the mean scores of the majority group. The tests appear to have a strong dimensional comparability between the different groups. There is very little indication of test bias. The increasing number of immigrants and the increase of safety jobs pose challenges for selection psychologists. It is suggested that continued use of safety suitability tests is needed to keep the number of safety accidents at a minimum.     

A Davidsonian argument against incommensurability

The writings of Kuhn and Feyerabend on incommensurability challenged the idea that science progresses towards the truth. Davidson famously criticized the notion of incommensurability, arguing that it is incoherent. Davidson's argument was in turn criticized by Kuhn and others. This article argues that, although at least some of the objections raised against Davidson's argument are formally correct, they do it very little harm. What remains of the argument once the objections have been taken account of is still quite damaging to the thesis that formerly endorsed scientific theories are incommensurable with those of today's science.