RETEST EFFECTS ON IDENTICAL AND PARALLEL FORMS IN CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE TESTING

Examinees who take credentialing tests and other types of high-stakes assessments are usually provided an opportunity to repeat the test if they are unsuccessful on initial attempts. To prevent examinees from obtaining unfair score increases by memorizing the content of specific test items, testing agencies usually assign an alternate form to repeat examinees. Given that the use of multiple forms presents both practical and psychometric challenges, it is important to determine if unwarranted score gains occur. Most research indicates that repeat examinees realize score gains when taking the same form twice; however, the research is far from conclusive, particularly within the context of credentialing. For the present investigations, two samples of repeat examinees were randomly assigned to receive either the same test form or a different, but parallel, form on the second occasion. Study 1 found score gains of about 0.79 SD units for 71 examinees who repeated a certification examination in computed tomography. Study 2 found gains of 0.48 SD units for 765 examinees who repeated a radiography certification examination. In both studies score gains for examinees receiving the parallel test were nearly indistinguishable from score gains for those who received the same test. Factors are identified that may influence the generalizability of these findings to other assessment contexts.     

大学生共情对利他行为的影响:一个有调节的中介模型

探究大学生共情、幸福感和神经质对利他行为的影响,为促进大学生利他行为提供依据。采用方便取样,选取辽宁省某高校选修课程学生273名,完成中文版人际反应指针量表、神经质人格问卷、幸福感指数量表和大学生利他行为问卷。结果显示:(1) 神经质在共情和利他行为之间起着部分中介作用,也就是说,共情既对利他行为产生直接影响,也通过神经质间接地影响着利他行为;(2) 幸福感是神经质部分中介共情和利他行为关系的调节变量。幸福感调节的是中介作用的后半路径,即共情通过神经质对利他行为的间接效应受到幸福感的调节。具体的说,相对于低幸福感的大学生,间接效应对于高幸福感的大学生更加显著。因此,共情对利他行为的影响是有调节的中介效应。研究结论对增强大学生利他行为有重要的理论价值和实践指导价值。     

Reaction time as an indicator of stimulus‐response binding in affective judgment of visual stimuli1

Conventional studies on affective meanings have been conducted using the semantic differential technique. Although it offers reasonably valid and reliable measures for the bindings between visual stimuli and affective responses, it is dependent on subjective rating. Thus, the present study examined whether the reaction time (RT) of affective judgments for visual stimuli (color, shape, and facial expression) can be an objective indicator of the strength of stimuli‐response bindings. The results can be summarized as follows: (a) RTs for judging Evaluation were longer regardless of stimulus type; (b) RTs for Activity were shorter regardless of stimulus type; and (c) RTs for Lightness and Sharpness depended on stimulus type. These phenomena are consistent with the findings of previous affective meaning studies, suggesting that the RTs for affective judgments can be useful indicators reflecting the strength of the bindings between stimulus properties and affective meanings across various target stimuli and rating scales.     

EFFICACY DISPERSION IN TEAMS: MOVING BEYOND AGREEMENT AND AGGREGATION

We challenge the assumption that within-team variability in team efficacy is simply a methodological concern and statistical prerequisite. We do so by developing a theoretical model and research agenda for the study of dispersion in team efficacy. We construct a taxonomy that distinguishes 4 distinct forms of dispersion in team efficacy, discuss the antecedents to these forms of dispersion, and examine how the forms of efficacy dispersion impact team emergent states, processes, and effectiveness.