THE NEW UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES IN THE CONTEXT OF UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL DECISIONS

The new Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are considered in a context of university employment decisions. The use of student evaluations as valid criteria for faculty personnel decisions such as hiring, retention, tenure, promotion, or salary increases is examined. Standards of validity contained in the Guidelines are probably not being met with regard to most student rating forms currently used. Recommendations are made regarding use of student and administrators' ratings as criteria for personnel decisions. The need for studies on contaminating sources of variance in ratings is emphasized.     

Semantic aphasia: A neglected entity

Three cases of semantic aphasia are reported. Computerized brain tomography showed bilateral temporo-parieto-occipital junction hemorrhages in one patient, and left parieto-occipital junction infarctions in the other two patients. The auditory comprehension defect of the three patients was characterized by preserved understanding of single words and impaired understanding of grammatically complex constructions. It is suggested that this comprehension defect reflects an inability to fully grasp the meaning of words and grammatical constructions imbued with spatial or quasi-spatial significance. Each of the three patients showed a complex spatial disorder that included constructional apraxia, spatial agnosia, and elements of Gerstmann's syndrome. The aphasic as well as the spatial disorder of semantic aphasics may be manifestations of a common defect in the perception of spatial relationships produced by left temporo-parieto-occipital region damage.     

Does the truth interfere with our ability to deceive?

Does the truth interfere with our ability to respond deceptively? We considered this question in the present study by examining the effects of a task set (i.e., selecting truthful or untruthful responses), both by comparing two presentations of the same task and through transfer to a different task. All participants carried out the task either under the instructions to respond both correctly and incorrectly (Experiment 1) or under the instructions to respond truthfully and deceptively (Experiment 2); the order of instructions was counterbalanced. In Experiment 2, after completing the main task, the participants also performed a Stroop task. The findings suggested that deceptive responses took longer overall, regardless of the order of instructions. Moreover, the experience of responding deceptively versus truthfully led to faster responding on a subsequent Stroop test. Although there may well be processes unique to deceptive responding, the evidence suggests that overcoming interference is a process shared by deceptive and nondeceptive tasks. orrespondence