Problems with single interest scales: Implications of the general factor

The presence of the general factor in interest and self-efficacy assessment and its meaning are reviewed. The general factor is found in all interest and self-efficacy assessment and has been viewed as (a) a nuisance factor with little effect on assessment, (b) a variable having substantive meaning and thus worthy of including in interpretation, and (c) as systematic bias that distorts the interpretation of the meaning of assessments. The premise of this article is that each interpretation is correct but only depending upon the context of the assessment. The main implication is that narrow single content interest scales are very subject to contaminating effects of the general factor making interpretation very difficult. Methods of correcting this contamination are presented.     

Assessment of Disgust Sensitivity in Children With an Age-Downward Version of the Disgust Emotion Scale

The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Disgust Emotion Scale for Children (DES-C). Principal components analysis of the DES-C data revealed five factors reflecting disgust toward (a) rotting foods, (b) injection and blood, (c) odors, (d) mutilation and death, and (e) animals, which were largely in keeping with the intended subscales. The DES-C showed good reliability, excellent convergent validity (as established by correlations with an alternative self-report index of disgust), fairly good predictive validity (as assessed by correlations with measures of fear/anxiety and a behavioral index of disgust), and acceptable parent–child agreement (in particular with the mothers). Importantly, the DES-C proved to perform better on some psychometric indicators than an age-downward version of the Disgust Scale. These findings indicate that the DES-C should be regarded as the preferred scale for measuring disgust sensitivity and its role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety problems in children.     

Methodological implications of the affect revolution: a 35-year review of emotion regulation assessment in children

This investigation analyzed the methods used over the past 35 years to study emotion regulation (ER) in children. Articles published from 1975 through 2010 were identified in 42 child clinical, developmental, and emotion psychology journals. Overall, 61.1% of published ER articles relied on one method and 23.6% used two methods. Analyses revealed (a) 82.8% of published ER research occurring within the past decade; (b) higher rates of observational methods with infant and toddler/preschool samples, but more use of self-report methodology with middle childhood and adolescent samples; (c) a longer history of published ER research with samples of infants to 5-year-olds, including the use of more longitudinal design, compared with older samples; and (d) a positive association between journal impact ratings and the use of physiological and observational measurement. Review of the measurement tools used to capture ER revealed great diversity in how emotion processes are understood and evaluated.     

Evaluating the Evidence for the General Factor of Personality across Multiple Inventories

A general factor of personality (GFP) has been proposed as the apex of a personality trait hierarchy that explains covariance among the lower-order factors measured by various personality inventories. In this study we evaluated the GFP hypothesis across several personality inventories, unlike most previous research in which the GFP has been derived from individual instruments in isolation. Exploratory analyses did not produce substantial evidence for the existence of a single cross-instrument higher-order factor of factors and efforts to specify a range of GFP-inspired models in a confirmatory framework led to significant estimation difficulties and poor fit to the data. Overall these results fail to support a common GFP that is positioned at the top of a personality trait hierarchy.     

What cognitive abilities are involved in trail-making performance?

The cognitive abilities involved in the Connections (Salthouse, et al., 2000) version of the trail making test were investigated by administering the test, along with a battery of cognitive tests and tests of complex span and updating conceptualizations of working memory, to a sample of over 3600 adults. The results indicate that this variant of the trail making test largely reflects individual differences in speed and fluid cognitive abilities, with the relative contributions of the two abilities varying according to particular measure of performance considered (e.g., difference, ratio, or residual). Relations of age on trail making performance were also examined. Although strong age differences were evident in the Connections and working memory measures, with both sets of variables there was nearly complete overlap of the age differences with individual differences in speed and fluid cognitive abilities.     

Évaluation de l’orthographe des élèves dysphasiques en situation de narration communicative : variations selon le type d’orthographe,lexicale versus morphologique

IntroductionThe overall goal of the study was to draw, in French language, a complete picture of spelling abilities in young students with SLI, enrolling in ordinary classes.ObjectiveThe main aim was to show how the developmental trajectories of lexical spelling and the morphological spelling are different when a large age span is observed (7 to 18 years old).MethodsThe spelling abilities were evaluated through a narrative communicative. Two groups of students with SLI (7–11 years and 12–18 years) were compared with two groups of typical students matched on chronological age.ResultsThe lexical spelling was acquired before the morphological spelling for SLI and typical participants. At 12–18 of age, the SLI participants did not produce more lexical errors than the typical group. For the lexical spelling, at 7–11 years, the SLI participants had a specific difficulty with the segmentation of the words: they produced words that do not exist in the language and which by definition have no morphological markers.ConclusionThe SLI participants need more time to learn than the typical participants. At 7–11 years, before learning of morphology, they must be able to control segmentation the segmentation of words. The low number of morphological errors in the school SLI group of 7–11 years is not necessarily a sign of difficulty. The increase in the number of errors at 12–18 years is the sign that this problem has been exceeded and that the learning of the written morphological markers can really begin.