A large sample investigation of the presence of nonlinear personality-job performance relationships

We examine 123 data sets from validation studies of a single five-factor model-based occupational personality measure for evidence of curvilinear relationships with job performance. Research has produced discrepant findings about whether and when to expect curvilinear relationships between normal range personality measures and job performance. Previous studies have relied on small and unsystematic sampling, a variety of noncomparable performance criteria, the use of personality inventories for which construct validity evidence is not immediately available, and a focus on only one or two of the Big Five personality factors. We report minimal evidence of curvilinearity, suggesting that these effects are unlikely to undermine typical uses of personality test scores in decision making. Any expected declines in performance at high ends of the predictor range were very small on average and would be highly unlikely to produce scenarios in which those passing a realistic cut score would underperform those screened out. Indices of job complexity and the importance of the personality trait did not moderate the forms of each personality–performance relationship. The results are useful for evaluating whether curvilinearity is likely to be an issue when self-report personality assessments are used to make decisions with tangible employment consequences.     

Target detection in one visual field in the presence or absence of stimuli in the contralateral field by right- and left-handed subjects

Marked differences in detectability are observed as a function of retinal locus when subjects are required to find a briefly exposed target pattern of uncertain location in the presence of a number of discriminably different nontarget patterns. Our previous studies using this search paradigm have attributed these detectability differences, and the right visual field detectability superiority associated with them, to a serial (scanning) mechanism which tends to examine stimuli in the right field earlier than those in the left. The present experiment, performed on large groups of right- and left-handed subjects, was designed to test the hypothesis that there are two independent serial processors, one in each hemisphere--an hypothesis which might account for the differences in detectability within and between the two half-fields in terms of hemispheric processing differences. The results are inconsistent with the dual independent serial processor hypothesis but are fully consistent with a single serial processor, a scanning mechanism, which has access to the information presented to both visual half-fields.     

Future Research Directions in the Study of Counselor Multicultural Competency

This article presents research ideas for further study of the role of multicultural counseling competencies in counseling and psychotherapy. Research recommendations revolve around the ideas of including the client in the assessment of counselors' multicultural counseling competencies and of studying multicultural counseling competencies in relation to process and outcome indexes of counseling. Este artículo presenta ideas para avanzar la investigación y estudio del papel de las competencias multiculturales en la consejería y la psicoterapia. Las recomendaciones de esta investigación se basan en dos ideas. La primera es incluir a los clientes en la evaluación de la competencia multicultural de sus consejeros, la segunda es el estudio de competencias multiculturales en relación al proceso y resultados de la consejería.     

Development of the Family Therapy Enactment Rating Scale

This report describes the development of a new scale designed to establish how therapists intervene and clients respond during effective enactments in family therapy sessions. The Family Therapy Enactment Rating Scale (FTERS) was developed by clinically trained investigators who observed 27 videotaped family therapy sessions and listed therapist interventions and client responses during four phases of enactments: pre-enactment preparation, initiation, facilitation, and closing commentary. Interrater reliabilities for the FTERS were calculated by training 6 undergraduate volunteers to rate independently a sample of 12 enactments. When reliabilities were found to be relatively low, a second study was conducted in which the FTERS was revised and reliabilities were calculated with a different sample of 21 videotaped enactments and a new group of 6 undergraduate raters. Reliability for the FTERS was found to be sufficiently robust to make this measure of therapist interventions and client responses a useful instrument for evaluating what takes place during enactments. Findings on the FTERS were used to offer tentative guidelines for effective initiation and facilitation of enactments in family therapy sessions.     

Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple-Baseline Design Variations

Multiple baseline designs—both concurrent and nonconcurrent—are the predominant experimental design in modern applied behavior analytic research and are increasingly employed in other disciplines. In the past, there was significant controversy regarding the relative rigor of concurrent and nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs. The consensus in recent textbooks and methodological papers is that nonconcurrent designs are less rigorous than concurrent designs because of their presumed limited ability to address the threat of coincidental events (i.e., history). This skepticism of nonconcurrent designs stems from an emphasis on the importance of across-tier comparisons and relatively low importance placed on replicated within-tier comparisons for addressing threats to internal validity and establishing experimental control. In this article, we argue that the primary reliance on across-tier comparisons and the resulting deprecation of nonconcurrent designs are not well-justified. In this article, we first define multiple baseline designs, describe common threats to internal validity, and delineate the two bases for controlling these threats. Second, we briefly summarize historical methodological writing and current textbook treatment of these designs. Third, we explore how concurrent and nonconcurrent multiple baselines address each of the main threats to internal validity. Finally, we make recommendations for more rigorous use, reporting, and evaluation of multiple baseline designs.