The “Circular” Problems of Calculating Risk: Dealing with Consanguinity

An ongoing problem in the genetics clinic is the calculation of inbreeding coefficients and recurrence risks for complex pedigrees, particularly when multiple loops are present. Although the Human Genome Project promises information about more of our genes in the foreseeable future, the actual assignment of disease status to specific loci will continue at a slower pace, so that accurate risk calculations are needed. In the past few months several families with consanguinity were referred to us to confirm the calculations performed by the genetic counselor, and we became aware of some confusion in the field. We present here both (a) a clarification of definitions and concepts and (b) a review of how to perform the calculations, for several quantities (coefficient of relationship, coefficient of inbreeding, coefficient of kinship, and recurrence risk), in complex pedigrees. We discuss the availability of computer algorithms to assist in these calculations, and we encourage counselors to call on a reliable computer program for any but the simplest cases. At the same time, we reiterate our belief that computer algorithms do not relieve the counselor of the responsibility of knowing what to calculate and when.     

Career proactivity: Conceptual and theoretical reflections

This article adds several conceptual and theoretical reflections to the article “Career proactivity: A bibliometric literature review and a future research agenda” by Jiang et al. The authors conducted a timely and relevant study by analyzing and integrating literature on career proactivity from the domains of organizational and vocational behavior. Prior research has clearly demonstrated that these areas are still largely operating as separate “islands,” both conceptually and methodologically. As such, systematically analyzing the literature and synthesizing the many existing proactivity-related constructs are important steps forward in taking research on career proactivity to the next level. Though their bibliometric analysis confirms the gap between vocational psychology and OB research, there is also a hopeful message in the article, as several clusters showed considerable connections. Thus, it seems that scholars are starting to build bridges between the islands. Building on their analysis and future research suggestions, in this article, we further explore three specific considerations related to (1) conceptual issues, (2) theoretical issues, and (3) additions to their future research agenda.     

新世纪20年国内测验信度研究

随着验证性因子分析模型的应用, 信度研究进入了崭新的发展阶段。新世纪前20年国内有关测验信度的研究有三条发展主线。一是基于验证性因子模型的信度发展, 包括同质性系数、合成信度、最大信度等; 二是数据类型的拓展, 包括两水平和追踪数据的信度; 三是信度用途的拓展, 如评分者信度、编码者信度等。对于通常的测验(题目之间的测量误差不相关), 如果α系数够高, 信度就够高; 否则使用合成信度。如果一个统计模型中所有变量的合成信度都很高(超过0.95), 使用显变量建模与使用潜变量建模的结果差别不大; 否则, 使用潜变量建模较好。