Expert evidence by psychologists: Sometimes problematic and often premature

This article provides a critical review of two major types of expert evidence: (a) clinical assessments, and (b) generalizations drawn from psychological research. Strong arguments both for and against both types of testimony have been offered by legal experts and psychologists. These arguments are evaluated and the conclusion is drawn that there are two fundamental problems for psychologists in the role of expert. First, the types of assessments clinicians are asked to make (e.g., concerning the accused's mental state at the time of committing the offense) may exceed the capacity of the discipline; such assessments are problematic. Second, the research foundation that psychologists employ in court does not always apply to the court situation in the way experts imply; the application of laboratory research findings to real world contexts is sometimes premature. The article concludes with an admonition that psychologists should adopt a more conservative response to requests to provide expert evidence.     

Brief group psychotherapy at retirement

Brief group psychotherapy as a method of treating psychological aftereffects of retirement is still in its infancy. It is therefore still possible to outline the whole field in overview. This paper examines the dynamics of aging and the relevant literature, discusses the conceptual issues involved, and describes techniques employed with this specific population. The typical cluster of complaints is portrayed, the psychological stressors associated with retirement are analyzed, and the various group-therapeutic modalities developed to counteract them are described. Furthermore, the rationale, process and characteristics of short-term group psychotherapy in the treatment of adjustment difficulties to retirement are reviewed. The clinical application of this approach, the therapist's particular roles and the therapeutic impact of this method are delineated.He would like to thank his co-therapist, Mrs. Sophie Bielawski, Reg. O.T., for her support and helpful observations and Drs. J. Regan and E. Sunday for their advice on methodolody.     

Automated data collection using bar code

Using bar code technology to automate data collection provides a rapid and reliable alternative to paper-and-pencil tracking or keyboard entry into pocket or laptop computer. An array of bar code symbols is printed on a data menu, with a unique symbol corresponding to each possible observation. Bar code symbols are scanned using hand-held readers, which record the event, log the observation time, and store data for transfer to a personal computer. Advantages of the bar code monitoring system include: (1) ease of use by staff with minimal technical training, (2) reduced data entry errors and increased entry speed, (3) reliable portable operation, and (4) low-cost hardware. While the bar code system described here is used for behavioral monitoring in a residential treatment setting for the developmentally disabled, with minimal modification this system can be adapted for use in a wide variety of research and clinical applications.     

A quantitative analysis of chain-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained with a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left key and with reinforcers available on the right key on a single variable-interval schedule arranged concurrently with both links of the chain. All three schedules were separately and systematically varied over a wide range of mean intervals. During these manipulations, the obtained reinforcer rates on constant arranged schedules also frequently changed systematically. Increasing reinforcer rates in Link 2 of the chain increased response rates in both links and decreased response rates in the variable-interval schedule concurrently available with Link 2. Increasing Link-1 reinforcer rates increased Link-1 response rates and decreased Link-2 response rates. Increasing reinforcer rates on the right-key schedule decreased response rates in Link 1 of the chain but did not affect the rate in Link 2. The results extend and amplify previous analyses of chain-schedule performance and help define the effects that a quantitative model must describe. However, the complexity of the results, and the fact that constant arranged reinforcer schedules did not necessarily lead to constant obtained reinforcer rates, precluded a quantitative analysis.     

Effects of relative reinforcer frequency on complex color detection

Pigeons were trained under a discrete-trials detection procedure in which one of a set of color stimuli was presented on the center key and a single response turned off the stimulus and illuminated two side keys. Single responses to one or the other side key produced occasional reinforcers depending on the value of the color stimulus. In Experiment 1, one color-stimulus set comprised 559, 564, 569, and 574 nm, and right-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. The other stimulus set comprised 579, 584, 589, and 594 nm, and left-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. Across seven experimental conditions, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .9. In Experiment 2, one stimulus set contained only one member, 574 nm, and right-key responses were occasionally reinforced following its presentation. Over 12 experimental conditions, two manipulations were carried out. First, the number of stimuli comprising the other stimulus set was increased from one (579 nm) to two (579 and 584 nm) to three (579, 584, and 589 nm) and to four (579, 584, 589, and 594 nm), and left-key responses were reinforced occasionally following center-key presentations of members of this set. Second, for each stimulus combination, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .5 to .9 across three experimental conditions. The principal finding of Experiments 1 and 2 was that reinforcers and stimuli interacted in their effects on behavior. In Experiment 3, pairs of adjacent stimuli (5 nm apart) in the range 559 to 594 nm were presented in each experimental condition, and the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was held constant at .5. The data from all three experiments were analyzed according to a detection model describing performance in multiple-stimulus two-response procedures. This model provided independent measures of stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and bias. The analysis showed that (a) consistent with the color-naming function, pigeons were better able to discriminate between higher nanometer values than lower nanometer values; (b) their ability to discriminate between the stimuli was independent of the number of wavelengths comprising each stimulus set; (c) they allocated delivered reinforcers very accurately to the previously emitted response; and (d) no consistent biases emerged.