诚信结构初探

以质性研究的范式, 对中国人的诚信结构进行本土化的探索。遵循质性研究的“目的性抽样”原则, 采取强度抽样的具体策略进行取样, 选择了15名访谈对象。运用扎根理论的一般流程, 以深度访谈的方法收集资料并转换成电子文本。使用Nvivo 8.0质性分析软件对电子文本进行编码, 寻找本土的概念。初步产生292个开放式编码和关联式编码7个：“诚实、信用、信任、责任心、层次性、关联性、相互性”; 形成1个核心式编码：“诚信及其结构”。最后构建了两个理论：1)诚信由诚实、信用、信任和责任心四因素构成; 2)诚信四因素关系特点及其结构。采用原始资料检验法、专家评价法等效度评估和归类一致性指数信度评估对研究结果进行检验, 一致性程度较好, 说明有较好的效度和信度。     

心理疾病内隐污名述评

心理疾病内隐污名是个体无法内省或精确识别的与心理疾病有关的痕迹, 它潜在地调节着个体对心理疾病患者的观念和行为。心理疾病内隐污名的主要测量方法包括内隐联想测验、简式内隐联想测验、启动任务和生理心理测量。当前该研究领域集中在内隐污名的成分、公众内隐污名、自我内隐污名、去污名化评估等方面。未来研究可从心理疾病内隐污名的构成与结构、认知神经基础、测量整合和本土化等角度做进一步探讨。     

情境判断测验的效度研究述评

情境判断测验是一种为作答者呈现工作相关的典型情境以及该情境下可能的行为反应, 要求根据指导语提示进行选择或评价的测验形式。随着其理论和实践的发展, 研究者越来越关注情境判断测验的效度研究, 包括对其构想效度、效标关联效度和递增效度的探讨, 以及指导语类型、情境保真度以及计分方式等因素对其效度的影响。基于这些研究进展, 未来情境判断测验实践领域可能的方向是：(1)开发针对特定构想的情境判断测验; (2)结合具体构想选用相应的指导语; (3)应用作假和培训对效度影响的研究结果指导实践。     

A comparison of normative data for the Trail Making Test from several countries: equivalence of norms and considerations for interpretation

The Trail Making Test may not be equivalent across cultures, i.e., differences in the scores across different cultures may not reveal real differences in the ability of the subjects on the construct being measured. In order to assess this hypothesis, normative samples from ten different countries were compared. Age decade subgroups across samples were ranked based on mean time taken to complete each part of the task. Large Z scores differences were found between these samples when comparing the first with the second, and the last in the rank. These differences were significant even when age and education were comparable across samples. Following Van de Vijver & Tanzer (1997), several possible sources of bias were identified. Incomparability of samples and administration differences were the most likely factors accounting for differences. Because of the lack of validity studies in the countries considered, no firm conclusions could be obtained regarding construct bias. Although the TMT may be measuring visual scanning, psychomotor speed and mental flexibility, normative data from different countries and cultures are not equivalent which might lead to serious diagnostic errors.     

Mokken Scale Analysis for Dichotomous Items Using Marginal Models

Scalability coefficients play an important role in Mokken scale analysis. For a set of items, scalability coefficients have been defined for each pair of items, for each individual item, and for the entire scale. Hypothesis testing with respect to these scalability coefficients has not been fully developed. This study introduces marginal modelling as a framework to derive the standard errors for the scaling coefficients and test hypotheses about these coefficients. Several examples demonstrate the possibilities of marginal modelling in Mokken scale analysis. These possibilities include testing whether Mokken’s criteria for a scale are satisfied, testing whether scalability coefficients of different items are equal, and testing whether scalability coefficients are equal across different groups.     

Individual differences in processing styles: validity of the Rational-Experiential Inventory

In Study 1 (N= 203) the factor structure of a Swedish translation of Pacini and Epstein's Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-40) was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis. The hypothesized model with rationality and experientiality as orthogonal factors had satisfactory fit to the data, significantly better than alternative models (with two correlated factors or a single factor). Inclusion of "ability" and "favorability" subscales for rationality and experientiality increased fit further. It was concluded that the structural validity of the REI is adequate. In Study 2 (N= 72) the REI-factors were shown to have theoretically meaningful correlations to other personality traits, indicating convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, scores on the rationality scale were negatively related to risky choice framing effects in Kahneman and Tversky's Asian disease task, indicating concurrent validity. On the basis of these findings it was concluded that the test has satisfactory psychometric properties.     

A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism

Rule-consequentialists tend to argue for their normative theory by claiming that their view matches our moral convictions just as well as a pluralist set of Rossian duties. As an additional advantage, rule-consequentialism offers a unifying justification for these duties. I challenge the first part of the ruleconsequentialist argument and show that Rossian duties match our moral convictions better than the rule-consequentialist principles. I ask the rule-consequentialists a simple question. In the case that circumstances change, is the wrongness of acts determined by the ideal principles for the earlier circumstances or by the ideal ones for the new circumstances? I argue that whichever answer the rule-consequentialists give the view leads to normative conclusions that conflict with our moral intuitions. Because some set of Rossian duties can avoid similar problems, rule-consequentialism fails in the reflective equilibrium test advocated by the rule-consequentialists.     

Must Differences in Cognitive Value be Transparent?

Frege’s ‘differential dubitability’ test is a test for differences in cognitive value: if one can rationally believe that p while simultaneously doubting that q, then the contents p and q amount to different ‘cognitive values’. If subject S is rational, does her simultaneous adoption of different attitudes towards p and q require that the difference between p and q (as cognitive values) be transparent to her? It is natural to think so. But I argue that, if attitude anti-individualism is true, then rational differential dubitability does not presuppose that differences in cognitive value are transparent. The significance of this argument lies in what it tells us, both about the notion of cognitive value and its relation to the differential dubitability test, but also about the prospects for a Burge-type position which aims to combine attitude anti-individualism with a (qualified) reliance on the differential dubitability test.

登楼试验在低肺功能食管癌患者术前心肺功能评估中的作用研究

对需行食管癌手术的418例患者行术前静态肺功能检查后,按第一秒用力呼气量占预计值百分比（FEV1％）分为两组：肺功能正常组（NPF）和低肺功能组（LPF）。NPF组直接手术治疗,LPF组补充登楼试验,选择部分患者经术前功能锻炼后手术治疗,观察两组的临床情况。静态肺功能测定结果较差而进行登楼试验筛选后的部分患者可以通过功能锻炼提高心肺功能储备,从而能够接受手术治疗。