Bayesian inference and the classical test theory model: Reliability and true scores

A general one-way analysis of variance components with unequal replication numbers is used to provide unbiased estimates of the true and error score variance of classical test theory. The inadequacy of the ANOVA theory is noted and the foundations for a Bayesian approach are detailed. The choice of prior distribution is discussed and a justification for the Tiao-Tan prior is found in the particular context of the “n-split” technique. The posterior distributions of reliability, error score variance, observed score variance and true score variance are presented with some extensions of the original work of Tiao and Tan. Special attention is given to simple approximations that are available in important cases and also to the problems that arise when the ANOVA estimate of true score variance is negative. Bayesian methods derived by Box and Tiao and by Lindley are studied numerically in relation to the problem of estimating true score. Each is found to be useful and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed and related to the classical test-theoretic methods. Finally, some general relationships between Bayesian inference and classical test theory are discussed. Supported in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development under Research Grant 1 PO1 HDO1762. Reproduction, translation, use or disposal by or for the United States Government is permitted.     

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Contrary to the received understanding that Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez ruled out religious war by grounding just cause in natural law, they supported a robust view of papal authority for war when necessary for the defense of the church against heretics, schismatics, and pagans as well as for the spread of Christianity and Christendom throughout the world. They believed that religious wars were in accord with natural law as a means to its fulfillment in Christianity, as a justification for the defense of the church as the one true faith, and as a moral obligation to provide all of humanity with the opportunity to receive Christian truth and grace. The neo‐Thomists' vigorous support for religious war was in the mainstream of the Christian just war tradition from the time of the wars against pagans in the early middle ages through their own time. This finding and the continuation into the modern era of sanctified patriotism stemming from the mixing of church and state especially during war that began in early Middle Ages, along with the historic roots of the recently prominent presumption against war, argue for a more complex understanding of the normative Christian just war tradition than that found among supporters of the classic interpretation of that tradition.     

Communication of Genetic Risk Information to Daughters in Families with Fragile X Syndrome: The Parent’s Perspective

Parental approaches to communicating information about genetic disorders to their children may be an important determinant in how the children manage stress as well as their adjustment and adaptation to that information. We explored communication patterns through structured interviews with 46 parents of daughters who learned about their genetic risk status as minors. Three different levels of knowledge about fragile X syndrome were explored: 1) informing that it has been diagnosed in the family and is an inherited disorder, 2) informing about the possibility of a daughter being a carrier, and 3) if testing had been done, informing the daughter of her actual carrier status. Additionally, parental perceptions of their daughter’s understanding of the information were explored along with frequency of discussions. We found that communication about genetic risk was initiated by the parents. Five disclosure patterns were identified with variations in style, content, and frequency of communication related to the information that was being disclosed. Aspects of resilient communication were present for all levels of disclosure; however, as the information became more personally relevant for the daughter such as disclosure about the possibility of “being a carrier” for fragile X syndrome and there was uncertainty regarding potential outcomes, the conversations included fewer resilient characteristics. Uncertainty about what and how to present information may negatively affect a parent’s ability to include elements of resilient communication when disclosing genetic risk information.     

The “Incompatible Idea” Revisited: The Oft-Invisible Ego-Ideal and Shame Dynamics

The observation that incompatibility with conscience initiates deployment of defense goes back to Freud's conceptualization of the "incompatible idea" put forward in Studies on Hysteria. In this view, consciousness itself, insofar as it gives rise to painful affect resulting from conflict with the conscience, is the cornerstone for dynamic thinking, first as regards repression of traumatic memory and later for dynamic thinking generally. Subsequent discoveries about the conscience tended to give rise to pars pro toto thinking in which the new discovery replaced rather than added to the basic notion of conscience. Such pars pro toto imbalance exists in full force in psychoanalytic thinking today: Modern conflict theory privileges the postoedipal retaliative aspect of the conscience, as Kleinian thinking does for the preoedipal projective aspects of retaliation. Neither conceptualizes shame adequately. Kohut appreciated the role of shame, but discarded the notion of incompatibility with the ego-ideal. The incompatible idea model still provides an all-inclusive model for conceptualizing the conscience in the context of intrapsychic conflict.     

A SCIENTIST AND A THEOLOGIAN SEE THE WORLD: COMPROMISE OR SYNTHESIS?

Abstract. A scientist (for whom the world is the universe) and a theologian (for whom the world is planet Earth) engage in dialogue, not contrived Platonic or Galilean dialogue, but true bidisciplinary dialogue that strives for higher viewpoint. S: Is the preservation of the human species a primary human responsibility? T: It may be a responsibility we share with God. S: The human species has a limited future if confined to the planet Earth. We must diversify our habitat by colonizing space. T: We are responsible for other life on the planet as well. The discussants conclude that besides protecting Earth ecologies, we should create new ecologies in space.