Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.     

Facial comparison behaviour of forensic facial examiners

Facial examiners make visual comparisons of face images to establish the identities of persons in police investigations. This study utilised eye-tracking and an individual differences approach to investigate whether these experts exhibit specialist viewing behaviours during identification, by comparing facial examiners with forensic fingerprint analysts and untrained novices across three tasks. These comprised of face matching under unlimited (Experiment 1) and time-restricted viewing (Experiment 2), and with a feature-comparison protocol derived from examiner casework procedures (Experiment 3). Facial examiners exhibited individual differences in facial comparison accuracy and did not consistently outperform fingerprint analysts and novices. Their behaviour was also marked by similarities to the comparison groups in terms of how faces were viewed, as evidenced from eye movements, and how faces were perceived, based on the made feature judgements and identification decisions. These findings further understanding of how facial comparisons are performed and clarify the nature of examiner expertise.     

An evaluation of the convergent validity of a face-to-face and virtual neuropsychological assessment counter balanced

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for further research evaluating the validity of conducting a battery of neuropsychological assessments virtually compared with face-to-face administration. Previous research has suggested that some neuropsychological assessments yield valid results when administered virtually, however, much of the previous research focused on older adults. To determine the validity of virtually administered neuropsychological tests, 28 healthy participants were assessed using a within-subjects, counter-balanced design. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery covering tests of general intellectual functioning, memory and attention, executive functioning, language and information processing speed, as well as effort. There was no significant difference between face-to-face administration of the neuropsychological battery compared with virtual administration for the majority of the tests used. However, there were significant differences in the Colour Naming Task, with participants making fewer errors on the colour naming task and inhibition/switching task when administered virtually compared with face-to-face administration. There was also a significant age cohort effect in the inhibition/switching task. There was also a trending significant difference in mode of administration for the Verbal Fluency Task. Virtually administered neuropsychological assessments largely provide a valid alternative to face-to-face assessments; however, consideration must be given to test selection as well as the population of participants that are being assessed. Other important considerations must focus on preserving the security and integrity of test materials, as well as administration in a medico-legal setting. Future research should focus on validating assessments with specific patient populations and developing a neuropsychological assessment battery using information technology.     

Predictors of COVID-19 precautionary behaviors to protect people with disabilities

Disability is conceptualized using one of two major frameworks: the medical and the social model of disability. The medical model of disability describes disability as an individual issue in which the appropriate intervention is to remove the disability. The social model of disability describes disability as a social construction in which the appropriate intervention is societal change to increase accessibility. This study drew on models of disability to understand predictors of engagement in COVID-precautionary behavior prior to the vaccine to protect people with disabilities (PWD) from contracting COVID-19. Participants (n = 720) with and without disabilities (n = 77 and n = 633, respectively) completed an online questionnaire measuring disability beliefs, attitudes toward PWD, concerns about PWD contracting COVID-19, and engagement in behavior protecting PWD from contracting COVID-19. Medical model beliefs were negatively associated with behavior. In addition, negative attitudes toward PWD and low concern about PWD contracting COVID-19 fully accounted for the relationship. Social model beliefs were positively associated with behavior. In addition, positive attitudes toward PWD and greater concern about PWD contracting COVID-19 partially explained the relationship. These findings suggest that framing disability as a social construction rather than a medical issue could promote greater public health behavior to protect PWD from contracting COVID.     

Distress,wellbeing, and growth amidst COVID-19: Considering the dynamic interplay between positive and negative anticipatory emotions

Although negative anticipatory emotions are typically seen as risk factors for poorer psychological outcomes over COVID-19, emotion theorists suggest that this risk may be attenuated if balanced by the experience of positive emotion. Thus, the current study examined whether interactions between positive and negative anticipatory emotions were concurrently associated with psychological distress and greater personal wellbeing/posttraumatic growth (PTG) at three distinct periods (i.e., pre-lockdown, during lockdown, post-lockdown), and whether associations varied by these three COVID-19 time periods. The study utilizes two large longitudinal Australian samples, surveyed in 2020 prior to, during, and after a strict 4-month lockdown that occurred in Australia. Overall, positive emotions attenuated the adverse psychological outcomes arising from higher levels of negative emotion (i.e., higher psychological distress and lower personal wellbeing). Observed effects varied according to COVID-19 threat exposure. Specifically, the interaction was significantly associated with psychological distress prior to the lockdown for Sample 2, and during the lockdown for both samples. The interaction was significantly associated with wellbeing (Sample 2) prior to, and during, the lockdown but only marginally associated post-lockdown. The interaction, however, was not significantly associated with PTG (Sample 1). The results suggest that it is valuable for future research to consider greater emotional complexity (i.e., mixed emotions) over COVID-19, and other stressors more generally, to encompass a more nuanced understanding of resilience.