The Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Criterion Validity

The Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) is a popular research and clinical tool for obtaining parental reports of childhood behavior problems. The present study introduces a revised CPRS (CPRS-R) which has norms derived from a large, representative sample of North American children, uses confirmatory factor analysis to develop a definitive factor structure, and has an updated item content to reflect recent knowledge and developments concerning childhood behavior problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic results revealed a seven-factor model including the following factors: Cognitive Problems, Oppositional, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, Anxious-Shy, Perfectionism, Social Problems, and Psychosomatic. The psychometric properties of the revised scale appear adequate as demonstrated by good internal reliability coefficients, high test-retest reliability, and effective discriminatory power. Advantages of the CPRS-R include a corresponding factor structure with the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale—Revised and comprehensive symptom coverage for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related disorders. Factor congruence with the original CPRS as well as similarities with other parent rating scales are discussed.     

An investigation of the validity of the SPSI and SPSI-R in differentiating high-suicidal from depressed,low-suicidal college students

The present study examined the validity of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI) and SPSI—Revised in differentiating 65 high-suicidal from 63 depressed, low-suicidal college students. Results from multivariate analyses indicated overall differences in problem-solving between these two groups as measured by the SPSI but not by the SPSI-R. Further examination of these differences revealed the high-suicidal group was different in problem-solving orientation, rather than problem-solving skills, compared to the depressed, low-suicidal group. However, when depression was statistically controlled in hierarchical regression analyses, none of the problem-solving measures predicted group membership. The superiority of the SPSI to the SPSI-R in differentiating these two groups appears to be accounted for by the elimination of 28 items in the revised version, many of which measure orientation to problem-solving. Also explored was the possibility that objective measures of problem-solving provide a better prediction of adjustment than do self-report measures.     

Diagnosing posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI clinical scales: A review of the literature

A review of the literature resulted in 21 published studies that reported mean MMPI profile patterns for PTSD patients. Of these, six (29%) reported that the mean 8-2 profile pattern significantly differentiated PTSD patients from non-PTSD patients. The majority of studies found additional PTSD profile patterns reflecting nearly all of the MMPI clinical scales. The data indicate some common group profile patterns for inpatient veterans, prisoner's of war, and inpatient veteran substance abusers. The results also support the hypothesis that there is a continuum from inpatient to outpatient and veteran to civilian populations that corresponds with both symptom and stressor severity. It is concluded that although there is some typicality in similar populations, clinicians should expect heterogeneous MMPI profiles from PTSD patients representing a diversity of clinical symptoms and styles.     

Beliefs about stories: Parents' and therapists' explanations of childhood difficulties

Therapists and parents were given vignettes describing the behavioural and emotional difficulties of two nine-year-old children and were asked to rate the importance of a number of possible explanations for such difficulties. Broad agreement was found between parents and therapists, but also there were a number of significant differences. Parents endorsed more child centered explanations and put greater emphasis on physical and developmental factors, while therapists endorsed relationships factors and saw the beliefs of other family members as important. Therapists who were parents showed a pattern of responses that lay between those of parents and non-parent therapists.     

The application of the satir model of family therapy to the families in Hong Kong: A personal reflection

Practitioners in Hong Kong have shown an increasing interest in various family therapy approaches since the 1980s. This paper offers a critique of the major concepts and techniques of the Satir model applied to families in Hong Kong. Cultural considerations are examined in relation to the family structure and hierarchy, the Chinese self and self-esteem, communication patterns, and family rules. Implications for the application of the Satir model of family therapy in Hong Kong are discussed.     

关于听觉条件下中文字词劣效果的研究

对听觉条件下中文字词劣效果的问题进行了实验考察,结果发现：在文章听点作业中,被试对高、低频目标字词语音的正误判断量存在着显著性差别,前者较后者成绩差,表现出字词劣效果的现象;在单字词的听点作业中,未发现被试对高、低频目标字词语音正误判断量方面的显著性差别;无论在文章还是单字词的听点作业中,被试对高、低频目标字词语音的正误判断量均比较低下,表明语音知觉的范畴性特征对字词语音的辩认准确性具有较大影响。     

A critical review of theS/L reliability index

The meaning and properties of a commonly used index of reliability, S/L,were examined critically. It was found that the index does not reflect any conventional concept of reliability. When used for an identical behavioral observation session, it is not statistically correlated with other reliability indices. Within an observation session, the standardizing measure of Lis beyond the control of the investigator. Furthermore, the reason for the choice of Las the standard is unclear. The role of chance agreement in S/Lis not known. The exact interpretation of the index depends on which observer reports L.Overall the conceptual and mathematical meaning of S/Lis dubious. It is suggested that the S/Lindex should not be used until its nature is shown to be a measure of reliability. Other approaches such as the intraclass correlations and generalizability coefficients should be used instead.The authors are indebted to Johnny Matson for his critique of an earlier version of this paper.