A comparative assessment of the factor structures and psychometric properties of the GHQ-12 and the GHQ-20 based on data from a Finnish population-based sample

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) is a self-report questionnaire designed to identify psychological distress. Psychometric properties of two versions of GHQ-12 and GHQ-20 were assessed in a large population-based sample of Finnish twins, ages 22 to 27 (n= 4580). Participants were randomized into two subgroups, namely Twin1 (n= 2294) and Twin2 (n= 2286). The GHQ-12 data were assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The factor structure of the GHQ-20 was first assessed with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in the Twin1 dataset, and the results obtained were then subjected to CFA in Twin1 and Twin2 datasets. The CFA of the GHQ-12 indicated that the best fit and the simplest solution were provided by the three-factor solution in both subpopulations. Analyses of the GHQ-20 suggested that the four-factor structure was superior to the three-factor model. This result is also theoretically justifiable. Compared to the 12-item version, GHQ-20 provides additional fourth factor of anhedonia, suggesting some discriminative power.     

Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme

Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, an argument’s assumptions can be evaluated as defeated, e.g., when there is a defeating reason against the assumption. The present work builds on recent research on defeasible argumentation (cf. e.g. the work of Pollock, Reiter, Loui, Vreeswijk, Prakken, Hage and Dung). More specifically, the author’s work on the dialectical logic DEFLOG and the argumentation tool ARGUMED serve as starting points.     

荀子社会分层的政治伦理思想及其现代价值

基于天人关系,荀子从人的自然本性和社会性出发,对其社会分层的政治伦理思想作了哲学论证。以“礼”为核心和标准,荀子把社会分层划分为社会等级分层与社会职业分层两个层面。荀子把“礼”的功能———“群”与“分”,特别是等级差别之“分”作为社会分层的手段,以最终实现社会和谐有序的政治理想。这对于我们今天构建社会主义和谐社会仍具有一定的现实意义。     

初中生学业延迟满足的发展特点及其相关因素研究

用问卷法对194名初中生学业延迟满足的特点及相关因素进行了研究。结果表明:初中学生的学业延迟满足存在年级和性别差异,初二和初三学生的学业延迟满足水平明显低于初一学生,女生比男生的学业延迟满足能力高。课堂目标结构与学业延迟满足有显著关系,任务取向的课堂目标与学业延迟满足呈正相关关系;自我取向的课堂目标与学业延迟满足呈负相关关系。任务价值、自我效能与学业延迟满足呈正相关关系,学业延迟满足与学业成绩呈正相关关系。     

Idealism and the Ontological Argument

The ontological proof became something of a signature argument for the British Idealist movement and this paper examines how and why that was so. Beginning with an account of Hegel's understanding of the argument, it looks at how the thesis was picked up, developed and criticized by the Cairds, Bradley, Pringle-Pattison and others. The importance of Bradley's reading in particular is stressed. Lastly, consideration is given to Collingwood's lifelong interest in the proof and it is argued that his attention is best understood as a direct continuation of theirs. In view of the fact that recent commentators have tried to draw a sharp line between Collingwood's approach to metaphysics and ontology and that of his predecessors, the establishment of this connection calls for a measure of reassessment on both sides.     

Using cumulative-recall curves to assess the extent of relational and item-specific processing

Although distinguishing between item-specific and relational information has proved to be a useful approach for understanding a variety of important memory phenomena, finding measurement tools for assessing the amount and type of information processed has proven difficult. Using the repeated-testing procedure, Burns (1993) demonstrated that item gains (the recall of items on a later test that were not recalled on earlier tests) and item losses (the forgetting of items on a later test that were recalled on earlier tests) reflected differences in amount of item-specific and relational information processed, respectively. Although several researchers have begun to use the measures with apparent success, the present research demonstrates that the accuracy of the item-gain measure is largely dependent on the rather arbitrary choice of recall-test length. We also show that a related but alternative measure, analysis of cumulative-recall curves, avoids some of the shortcomings of the item gain and loss measures. Moreover, we provide evidence for the generality of the cumulative-recall approach by demonstrating its effectiveness in mixed-list designs.     

Adapting to test structure: Letting testing teach what to learn

We propose that we encode and store information as a function of the particular ways we have used similar information in the past. More specifically, we contend that the experience of retrieval can serve as a powerful cue to the most effective ways to encode similar information in comparable future learning episodes. To explore these ideas, we did two studies in which all participants went through study–test cycles of single category lists while we manipulated the nature of the recognition tests. The recognition tests either included only same-category lures or only different-category lures. The experience of repeated testing leads participants to avoid conceptual-based strategies but only when conceptual knowledge was poorly diagnostic for recognition (i.e., in the same-category lures condition). In a second study with a similar manipulation, we showed that repeated testing with lures from the same category as study items improved performance in a final recall surprise test compared to conditions in which different-category lures were used. Such a difference is akin to the one obtained when encoding instructions focus on distinctive item features compared to cases in which the focus is on relational processing. We suggest that testing requirements lead to adaptive changes at encoding.     

Conceptual Structure and the Emergence of the Language Faculty: Much Ado about Knotting

Abstract

One perspective in contemporary linguistic theory defends the idea that the language faculty may result from the combinations of diverse systems and principles. As a case study, I critique a recent proposal by Juan Uriagereka and colleagues according to which the evolutionary emergence of the language faculty can be identified through studying the computational structure of knots as present within the fossil record. I here argue that the ability to conceptualize and, thereby, create knots is not parasitic on the ability to conceptualize and create language. On the contrary, these two domains are entirely distinct, unrelatable in terms of their computational complexity, expressive power or, most importantly, in terms of their requisite mental operations and principles. The overall approach defended here can profitably be employed in the study of the relationship between language and thought, as I briefly discuss in the case of the role of language in spatial reorientation.     

Reasons and practical possibility

According to a common thesis about normative reasons for action, you have a reason to perform a given action only if you can act for that reason. This thesis has long had broad appeal and is intended to capture the practical character of practical reasons. I’ll call it the ‘Practicality Thesis’. Recently, however, various writers have developed subtly different objections to it, each designed to show that there can be actions you have a reason to perform even though you could not act for that reason – because, were you aware of the reason-giving facts in the ways needed to act for the reason, it would no longer be a reason for you to so act. This article defends the Practicality Thesis against such objections. It considers some extant defences but shows that these are inadequate. It then advances an alternative approach intended to counter any structurally similar objection.