Children's Representations of the World of Drugs

The changing profile of drug use has highlighted the need for age-appropriate education which requires insight into children's representations of drugs. Representations were elicited from 134 children aged between 5 and 11 years, drawn from two schools, by asking them to draw and write their responses to questions relating to a story about losing and finding a bag of drugs. Relevant responses were generated by 119 children aged between 8 and 11 years. A content analysis of these responses revealed differences with school and age. Older children were more likely to recognize that drugs can be good or bad depending on type, quantity taken and reason for use. The children had firm ideas about who takes drugs and their motivations and were knowledgeable about methods of use. They recognized that drugs can be dangerous, but had little understanding of how or why. The children's representations were characterized by fear and uncertainty and most wanted to know more. These findings are used to argue that there is a need for child-centred constructivist approaches to drug education which seek to demystify drugs and drug use and to orientate children to the realities of the world of drugs in the 1990s.     

A FIELD STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE: RESEARCH- VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE- BASED RATINGS

Many researchers have discussed the theoretical and practical importance of rating purpose. Nevertheless, the body of empirical studies, the majority of which were conducted in a laboratory setting, focus on leniency. There has been little research on other effects of rating purpose. The present study examines 223 ratees in a field setting for whom there were both administrative-based performance appraisal ratings (which were actually used for personnel decisions) and research-based performance appraisal ratings (obtained for a validation study). Two of the hypotheses were supported; administrative ratings were more lenient than research-based ratings. The administrative-based ratings demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with ratee seniority, while the research-based ratings did not. There was mixed support for a third hypothesis: Research ratings were significantly correlated with a predictor, while the administrative ratings were not. The difference between the validity coefficients, however, was not significant. Contrary to the hypothesis, the rank order between administrative-based and research-based ratings was relatively high ( r = 33).     

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF TEST VALIDITY AND BIAS ON SELECTION ERRORS AND ADVERSE IMPACT IN HUMAN RESOURCE SELECTION

We propose an integrative framework for understanding the relationship among 4 closely related issues in human resource (HR) selection: test validity, test bias, selection errors, and adverse impact. One byproduct of our integrative approach is the concept of a previously undocumented source of selection errors we call bias‐based selection errors (i.e., errors that arise from using a biased test as if it were unbiased). Our integrative framework provides researchers and practitioners with a unique tool that generates numerical answers to questions such as the following: What are the anticipated consequences for bias‐based selection errors of various degrees of test validity and test bias? What are the anticipated consequences for adverse impact of various degrees of test validity and test bias? From a theory point of view, our framework provides a more complete picture of the selection process by integrating 4 key concepts that have not been examined simultaneously thus far. From a practical point of view, our framework provides test developers, employers, and policy makers a broader perspective and new insights regarding practical consequences associated with various selection systems that vary on their degree of validity and bias. We present a computer program available online to perform all needed calculations.