The Morality of Refusing to Treat HIV-positive Patients

ABSTRACT Do physicians and nurses have an obligation to treat patients who are HIV-positive? Although an initial review of the possible sources of such an obligation yields equivocal results, a closer examination reveals a clear obligation to treat. The current risk of job-caused HIV-infection is not sufficient to warrant a refusal to treat. This is so because there exist rationally justified, general social, as well as specific peer expectations, that health care professionals treat HIV-positive patients. These expectations impose moral obligations on doctors and nurses. Moreover there is no sound libertarian argument entitling doctors and nurses to refuse to treat HIV-positive patients. A morally appropriate identification with his or her role would disincline a health care professional to refuse treatment to an HIV-positive patient. The likely source of such refusal is occupational alienation and an irrational reaction to AIDS symbolism.     

META-ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY-JOB PERFORMANCE RELATIONS: A REPLY TO ONES, MOUNT, BARRICK, AND HUNTER (1994)

Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein's (1991) meta-analysis identified higher average correlations for personality in predicting job proficiency than did Barrick and Mount's (1991). Ones et al. suggest that discrepancies between the two studies involving the Big Five personality dimensions are due to certain procedural differences. In this reply, we show that their arguments do not adequately explain the noted discrepancies. We also show that, because personality traits correlate significantly with job performance both positively and negatively beyond chance levels, use of absolute values, contrary to Ones et al., is important in meta-analyses involving personality. Addressing all of Ones et al.3 statistical concerns, re-analysis of Tett et al.k main data set results in slightly lower mean validities (e.g., .24 vs.29 for fully corrected values based on confirmatory estimates), and renders non-significant the job analysis/no job analysis distinction found to be significant in the original study. Tett et al.'s main conclusions, however, remain unchanged. We suggest that Barrick and Mount's lower mean validities may be due to their averaging signed correlations, pooling exploratory and confirmatory findings, and to the use of different inclusion criteria for selecting source studies.     

A Process Model for Prevention Program Research

Interventions attempted before the onset of a counseling problem are primary prevention efforts. A process model for prevention program research is the focus of this paper. The process model features four essential steps: assessment, goal setting, strategy implementation, and evaluation. The likely problems encountered by a prevention researcher at each step of the model are discussed.     

PERSONALITY MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to investigate conflicting findings in previous research on personality and job performance. Meta-analysis was used to (a) assess the overall validity of personality measures as predictors of job performance, (b) investigate the moderating effects of several study characteristics on personality scale validity, and (c) appraise the predictability of job performance as a function of eight distinct categories of personality content, including the "Big Five" personality factors. Based on review of 494 studies, usable results were identified for 97 independent samples (total N = 13,521). Consistent with predictions, studies using confirmatory research strategies produced a corrected mean personality scale validity (.29) that was more than twice as high as that based on studies adopting exploratory strategies (.12). An even higher mean validity (.38) was obtained based on studies using job analysis explicitly in the selection of personality measures. Validities were also found to be higher in longer tenured samples and in published articles versus dissertations. Corrected mean validities for the "Big Five" factors ranged from .16 for Extroversion to .33 for Agreeableness. Weaknesses in the reporting of validation study characteristics are noted, and recommendations for future research in this area are provided. Contrary to conclusions of certain past reviews, the present findings provide some grounds for optimism concerning the use of personality measures in employee selection.