Reviews of current books

Pastoral Psychology -     

The Development and Evaluation of a Measure of Counselor Effectiveness

The purpose of this research was to construct and evaluate a measure for assessing counselor-trainee effectiveness. An eight-category rating instrument was constructed and two standardized interview situations emphasizing problems commonly encountered by secondary school counselors were developed. The standardized interview situations provided by the use of coached counselees permitted a panel of six trained judges to evaluate via closed-circuit television 30 counselor-trainees under conditions designed to insure comparability and, hence, fair appraisal. Using a definition of reliability as the degree of consistency between judges, the average correlation between ratings given by pairs of independent raters was .50. It was concluded that the rating instrument developed and the techniques employed for its use constituted a usable, realistic measure for assessing the counseling proficiency of counselor-trainees.     

A note on further experiments on the effects of meprobamate on discrimination performance in the monkey

A previous experiment (Gross and Weiskrantz, 1961) has shown that performance on a successive auditory discrimination task is impaired by injections of meprobamate. The present two brief experiments indicate that the drug also impairs simultaneous visual discrimination performance, although not to the same degree as found earlier for auditory discrimination. The original finding, therefore, cannot be attributed simply to unique features of the auditory discrimination situation, such as the “go—no-go” response contingency. Since neither overtraining nor drug habituation appears to be of great importance, it is suggested that the lesser effect of the drug in these experiments reflects the greater stability of visual than auditory habits in the monkey.

Earlier work has shown that meprobamate and reserpine can cause a severe deterioration in auditory discrimination performance of monkeys (Gross and Weiskrantz, 1961). This result was taken as supporting a hypothesis, growing out of still earlier research, that tranquillizers decrease the utilization of sensory information (Weiskrantz and Wilson, 1956; Weiskrantz, 1957).

The auditory task, as is almost always the case with monkeys as subjects, involved a “go—no-go” type of response contingency—i.e. the animal had to respond to the positive stimulus and had not to respond to the negative stimulus in order to achieve reward. It might be objected, therefore, that the deterioration in performance was associated not with discrimination as such but with the animals' willingness to perform at all. In fact, it was found that the animals tended to make most of their errors under the drugs by responding when they should not rather than not responding when they should.

The purpose of the present experiments, therefore, was to test the animals with a visual discrimination task in which both the positive and negative stimuli were presented simultaneously. An effect of the drug could not, in this situation, be characterized simply as altering the responsiveness of the animal. A further purpose in using visual stimuli was to test the generality of the earlier finding in a sense modality other than audition.     

Children's judgments of body size and distortion

Body size estimates of 69 children aged 5–13 years were obtained using a TV video methodology. Tasks included an adjustment procedure where children manipulated the width of their body image on a TV, and a discrete task, where they judged the accuracy of their TV image which was presented as either normal or distorted, that is, too wide or too thin. On the continuous task, judgments were more accurate on ascending trials where children had to increase the width of the image. On the discrete task, a signal detection analysis revealed older children were better in detecting size distortion in their images and that the differences were due to differences in the biological sensory system and not due to a bias to report that they were too fat or too thin. However, there were response bias differences between genders. Females were more likely to report size distortion with increasing age while males were less likely.