The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training performance: little more than past performance

Past research on the influence of self-efficacy in training has provided mixed results. Key differences between studies pertain to whether past performance is operationalized as a residual variable or as an unadjusted variable and to the type of task used. In this study, the authors conducted and performed a reanalysis to examine the influence of self-efficacy using both operationalizations of past performance in 2 experimental tasks. Results indicate that, regardless of task version or type, self-efficacy predicted performance only when a residual measure of past performance was used, but not when past performance was unadjusted. However, when past performance was adjusted, the findings for self-efficacy were likely a statistical artifact. These results suggest that self-efficacy is a consequence rather than a cause of performance in training.     

Different effects of dual task demands on the speech of young and older adults

Young and older adults provided language samples in response to elicitation questions while concurrently performing 3 different tasks. The language samples were scored on three dimensions: fluency, grammatical complexity, and content. Previous research had suggested the hypothesis that the restricted speech register of older adults is buffered from the costs of dual task demands. This hypothesis was tested by comparing language samples collected during a baseline condition with those produced while the participants were performing the concurrent tasks. The results indicate that young and older adults adopt different strategies when confronted with dual task demands. Young adults shift to a restricted speech register when confronted with dual task demands. Older adults, who were already using a restricted speech register, became less fluent although the grammatical complexity and informational content of their speech was preserved. Hence, some but not all aspects of older adults' speech are buffered from dual task demands.     

Counterfactual and prefactual conditionals.

We consider reasoning about prefactual possibilities in the future, for example, "if I were to win the lottery next year I would buy a yacht" and counterfactual possibilities, for example, "if I had won the lottery last year, I would have bought a yacht." People may reason about indicative conditionals, for example, "if I won the lottery I bought a yacht" by keeping in mind a few true possibilities, for example, "I won the lottery and I bought a yacht." They understand counterfactuals by keeping in mind two possibilities, the conjecture, "I won the lottery and I bought a yacht" and the presupposed facts, "I did not win the lottery and I did not buy a yacht." We report the results of three experiments on prefactuals that examine what people judge them to imply, the possibilities they judge to be consistent with them, and the inferences they judge to follow from them. The results show that reasoners keep a single possibility in mind to understand a prefactual.     

Creating activity schedules using Microsoft Powerpoint

We describe how PowerPoint presentation software can be used to create computer activity schedules to teach individuals with special needs. Presented are the steps involved in creating activity schedules with close-ended and open-ended activities, and for preparing schedules that include photos, sounds, text, and videos that can be used to occasion an individual's engagement in a variety of learning activities.     

Transforming psychological practice and society. Policies that reflect the new paradigm

As people with disabilities challenge psychology to acknowledge the sociopolitical foundations of their marginalization, they urge psychologists to help improve disability policy within and beyond the borders of the discipline. Understanding disability through a social paradigm offers opportunities to reframe the way psychologists define problems related to disability, to develop more collaborative relationships between psychologists and people with disabilities, and to adopt new professional responsibilities with respect to the disability community. The authors address the impact of the social paradigm on policies within psychology that guide consulting, advocacy, and training. The impact of national policy decisions, such as those associated with reimbursement, on practice and training is also discussed. Highlighted throughout are points of controversy prompted by new disability frameworks that remain open to illumination from the field.