Much ado about norming: The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) is a rating scale designed to assess executive functions in everyday life that is widely used in school and clinical settings and in research studies. It has been recently suggested, however, that the limited geographic stratification of the standardization sample renders the measure overly sensitive. We evaluated this hypothesis by examining BRIEF scores across studies of typically developing children and adolescents. Thirty-nine studies were identified that included at least one of three possible index scores. Mean scores across studies were (a) within one to two T-score units from the standardization sample mean of 50, (b) tended to be slightly lower than 50, and (c) were unrelated to geographic location (US Census regions or internationally). These findings refute recent claims that the BRIEF is overly sensitive and further add to the large body of literature supporting the validity of the measure.     

Does the Amount of Participation in Afterschool Programs Relate to Developmental Outcomes? A Review of the Literature

Contrary to the findings from previous reviews we found little support for the general notion that greater amounts of participation in afterschool programs was related to academic, behavioral, or socio-emotional outcomes. However, some relationships did emerge depending on how participation was conceptualized and measured, and the methodology used to assess the relationship between participation and outcomes. For example, some benefits occurred when participants with high levels of participation were compared to non-participants, not when they were compared to other program participants. Several suggestions are offered to improve future research on the relationship between aspects of participation and developmental outcomes.     

Work Sample Exams and Gender Adverse Impact Potential: The influence of self‐concept,social skills,and written skills

We clarify the existing literature on gender differences in work sample exams by disentangling such differences on work sample exams from other predictors (e.g., situational judgment tests). In fact, we note that there are only two articles specifically related to gender differences in work sample exams. Based on theory and literature from social psychology, neuropsychology, and applied psychology, we propose that the three constructs of self‐concept, social skills, and writing skills are likely to influence work sample gender differences. We tested our hypotheses on two samples of managers. We found in one instance that males scored higher on a technical exercise, but there was stronger support for females, on average, scoring higher on exercises that involved social skills and on exercises that involved writing skills. Work samples that targeted a broad array of knowledge, skills, and abilities were associated with higher overall scores for females (ds of ?.37 and ?.34) and, thus, were unlikely to be associated with gender‐based adverse impact against females.     

Reading Proficiency and Comparability of Mathematics and Science Scores for Students From English and Non-English Backgrounds: An International Perspective

The purpose of this research is to examine the comparability of mathematics and science scores for students from English language backgrounds (ELB) and non-English language backgrounds (NELB). We examine the relationship between English reading proficiency and performance on mathematics and science assessments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The findings indicate a strong relationship with reading proficiency accounting for up to 43% of the variance in mathematics and up to 79% in science. In all comparisons, ELB students either outperformed NELB students or performed at the same level. However, when statistical adjustments were made for reading proficiency, in both mathematics and science, the score gap between the groups became statistically non-significant in three out of the four countries. These findings point to differences in score meaning in mathematics and science assessments and limitations in comparing performances of ELB and NELB.     

Reviewing,Categorizing, and Analyzing the Literature on Black–White Mean Differences for Predictors of Job Performance: Verifying Some perceptions and Updating/Correcting Others

In both theoretical and applied literatures, there is confusion regarding accurate values for expected Black–White subgroup differences in personnel selection test scores. Much confusion arises because empirical estimates of standardized subgroup differences (d) are subject to many of the same biasing factors associated with validity coefficients (i.e., d is functionally related to a point‐biserial r). To address such issues, we review/cumulate, categorize, and analyze a systematic set of many predictor‐specific meta‐analyses in the literature. We focus on confounds due to general use of concurrent, versus applicant, samples in the literature on Black–White d. We also focus on potential confusion due to different constructs being assessed within the same selection test method, as well as the influence of those constructs on d. It is shown that many types of predictors (such as biodata inventories or assessment centers) can have magnitudes of d that are much larger than previously thought. Indeed, some predictors (such as work samples) can have ds similar to that associated with paper‐and‐pencil tests of cognitive ability. We present more realistic values of d for both researcher and practitioner use. Implications for practice and future research are noted.     

Jewish Courts in Medieval England

Basing their conclusions on Latin documents, historians have painted the Jewish courts of medieval England as limited and haphazard affairs, their jurisdiction limited mostly to family law. They have also assumed that rabbinic courts ceased their activity in England after 1242. Hebrew rabbinic sources from the same period—some of which have never been published—provide more detailed information. These sources describe several professional courts staffed by learned scholars and adjudicating a range of legal issues. These courts existed throughout the thirteenth century—until the Expulsion of 1290—and included some of the leading rabbis in medieval England: Benjamin of Cambridge, Moses of London, and Moses’s son Elijah Menahem. The London court of Rabbi Elijah Menahem in particular possessed significant powers and utilized Elijah’s royal connections to enforce its rulings. Besides correcting the scholarly perception of rabbinic courts in medieval England, this article demonstrates how crucially important rabbinic texts and responsa are for historians as a source alongside other types of medieval documentation.     

Autistic Traits Below the Clinical Threshold: Re-examining the Broader Autism Phenotype in the 21st Century

Diagnosis, intervention and support for people with autism can be assisted by research into the aetiology of the condition. Twin and family studies indicate that autism spectrum conditions are highly heritable; genetic relatives of people with autism often show milder expression of traits characteristic for autism, referred to as the Broader Autism Phenotype (BAP). In the past decade, advances in the biological and behavioural sciences have facilitated a more thorough examination of the BAP from multiple levels of analysis. Here, the candidate phenotypic traits delineating the BAP are summarised, including key findings from neuroimaging studies examining the neural substrates of the BAP. We conclude by reviewing the value of further research into the BAP, with an emphasis on deriving heritable endophenotypes which will reliably index autism susceptibility and offer neurodevelopmental mechanisms that bridge the gap between genes and a clinical autism diagnosis.     

Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover

A common belief among researchers is that vocational interests have limited value for personnel selection. However, no comprehensive quantitative summaries of interests validity research have been conducted to substantiate claims for or against the use of interests. To help address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of relations between interests and employee performance and turnover using data from 74 studies and 141 independent samples. Overall validity estimates (corrected for measurement error in the criterion but not for range restriction) for single interest scales were .14 for job performance, .26 for training performance, -.19 for turnover intentions, and -.15 for actual turnover. Several factors appeared to moderate interest-criterion relations. For example, validity estimates were larger when interests were theoretically relevant to the work performed in the target job. The type of interest scale also moderated validity, such that corrected validities were larger for scales designed to assess interests relevant to a particular job or vocation (e.g., .23 for job performance) than for scales designed to assess a single, job-relevant realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional (i.e., RIASEC) interest (.10) or a basic interest (.11). Finally, validity estimates were largest when studies used multiple interests for prediction, either by using a single job or vocation focused scale (which tend to tap multiple interests) or by using a regression-weighted composite of several RIASEC or basic interest scales. Overall, the results suggest that vocational interests may hold more promise for predicting employee performance and turnover than researchers may have thought.     

Comparing the Psychometric Characteristics of Ratings of Face‐to‐Face and Videotaped Structured Interviews

Videotaped interviews are used for both research and for making selection decisions in organizations. However, little research has examined the extent to which the psychometric characteristics of ratings of videotaped interviews are comparable with those of ratings made on the basis of face‐to‐face (FTF) interviews. Within a simulated selection setting, we compared ratings of interviewers who conducted FTF structured interviews to ratings of interviewers who viewed videotapes of those interviews. Results revealed that FTF ratings were significantly higher than video ratings of the same interviewees. We also found that the two sets of interviewers rated the relative performance of interviewees differently. For example, the correlation between FTF and video ratings (r=.31) was significantly smaller than the correlation between ratings of interviewers who conducted FTF panel interviews with the same interviewees (r=.73). Overall results suggest that researchers and practitioners should be cautious about generalizing research findings and selection decisions made on the basis of videotaped interviews to FTF interviews.