Introduction

The contributors to this reflection on the field consider the legacy of Christian ethics in comparative religious ethics (CRE), particularly in regard to whether the latter has escaped the parochialism and hegemony of the former, whether the legacy is simply vicious or whether it can be virtuous, and the specific ways in which the former has influenced the discipline of CRE in regard to methods and themes. Beyond these methodological questions, the contributors also speak to the historical development of Christian ethics and CRE in the cultural and institutional contexts of late twentieth century America and provide reflections on the politics of CRE as it is now practiced and debated in the field and in the academy.     

The utility of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) facet and item scores in predicting violent recidivism

There is relatively limited research on psychopathy in non-Caucasian ethnic groups and even less on the utility of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) that focuses on PCL-R facet and item scores in predicting violent recidivism. In this study, we assessed the utility of the PCL-R in prospectively predicting violent versus nonviolent recidivism during an 11-year follow-up window. A high-risk sample of 451 incarcerated Korean male offenders was assessed on the PCL-R at baseline. A total of 445 were reconvicted after release (353 violent and 92 nonviolent recidivists). Psychopathy facet scores were higher in violent compared to nonviolent recidivists. Facet 2 (affective) showed the strongest effect size (Cohen's d = 0.53; Percentage change in odds = 22.6%) in predicting violent recidivism. Analyses of the four items constituting the affective facet indicated that callous/lack of empathy (Percentage change in odds = 134.4%) and failure to accept responsibility (Percentage change in odds = 94.5%) were the strongest predictors of violent recidivism. Findings are to our knowledge the first to document the utility of the PCL-R in distinguishing violent from nonviolent recidivism and highlight the role of affective impairment (particularly lack of empathy) in violent recidivism.     

Introduction to John Wild’s “Marxist humanism and existential philosophy”

Continental Philosophy Review -     

Investigating Technology-Enhanced Item Formats Using Cognitive and Item Response Theory Approaches

The current study examined the relationship between test-taker cognition and psychometric item properties in multiple-selection multiple-choice and grid items. In a study with content-equivalent mathematics items in alternative item formats, adult participants’ tendency to respond to an item was affected by the presence of a grid and variations of answer options. The results of an item response theory analysis were consistent with the hypothesized cognitive processes in alternative item formats. The findings suggest that seemingly subtle variations of item design could substantially affect test-taker cognition and psychometric outcomes, emphasizing the need for investigating item format effects at a fine-grained level.     

When Validity Testing Lacks Validity: Comment on Levine et al.

The death of self‐construal research has been greatly exaggerated. Levine et al. (2003) highlight the alleged methodological limitations of the current body of the self‐construal model of culture. Their allegations, whether true or not, require a fair investigation. Careful examination of Levine et al. reveals pervasive logical flaws, methodological errors, and interpretation biases, which stem from ethnic stereotyping and other erroneous assumptions at various junctures. These fundamental errors, in turn, render their conclusions untenable. In testing their 1st set of hypotheses, which they proclaim to be “central to the validity” of self‐construal scales, Levine et al. bifurcate the participants into “Westerners” versus “Asians,” and then impose their a priori stereotype of how Westerners ought to be versus how Asians ought to be, which is scientifically unacceptable. This is an unscientific validation criterion (comparable to crude ethnic stereotypes such as “Asians are smarter”) and should not be used to judge the scales' validity. Next, in their discussion of priming, Levine et al. assert that the construct validity of the interdependent self‐construal requires that it must be susceptible to priming. This is an elementary logical fallacy. It simply does not follow from the definition of the interdependent self‐construal and therefore cannot be used as a criterion which reflects on construct validity. Their priming experiments are also deeply flawed by the unrepresentative sample of participants. Further, in their factor analyses, Levine et al. set up the “straw man” of a “universal a priori 2‐factor solution” although no self‐construal scholar or theory insists that there are precisely 2 universally applicable self‐construals or that the current self‐construal scales are perfect. The results of statistical analyses, such as those in Levine et al., crucially depend on the selection of presuppositions. Levine et al.'s presuppositions are untenable, yet they are passed off as self‐evident criteria for validity testing. Their article tries to create an illusion of finality, but is pervasively and fundamentally flawed.