CHILD-REARING BELIEFS WITHIN DIVERSE SOCIAL STRUCTURES: MOTHERS AND DAY-CARE PROVIDERS IN MEXICO*

The child-rearing beliefs of 32 mothers and 36 day-care providers in Mexico were compared. Day-care providers expected children to master developmental skills at an earlier age than did mothers. Day-care providers more strongly valued the development of independent and cooperative behavior, and placed less importance on obedience. They also reported employing more flexible and nonauthoritarian discipline strategies than did mothers. Mothers and caregivers did not differ in the extent to which they attributed the success of their discipline strategies to their own actions rather than to external factors. Also examined was how mothers' beliefs differed in families characterized by interdependent versus individualistic social structures. In interdependent families, mothers were more likely to believe in later mastery of developmental skills and to make external attributions. These findings suggest that Mexican children experience incongruous social norms as they move between home and day care settings, and that these norms, at least within the home, are associated with the social structural features of the setting.     

Midline and off-midline tongue and right- and left-hand vibrotactile thresholds of stutterers and normal-speaking individuals

Vibrotactile thresholds for 7 male stutterers and 7 normal-speaking men (age range for both groups = 19 to 32 yr.) were obtained from the right, midline, and left sides of the lingual dorsum, and the thenar eminences of both hands. The stutterers showed slightly higher (less sensitive) mean thresholds than the normal speakers for all three lingual test sites. This was not the case for the thresholds obtained from both hands. The preliminary data suggest that oral peripheral sensory integrity might be somewhat different for stutterers than for normal-speaking individuals.     

“Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” A rejoinder to Scruggs and Mastropieri

Scruggs and Mastropieri (Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 879–883, 1994) take issue with criticisms of their PND (Percent of Nonoverlapping Data) statistic that we offered in our recent article (Allison & German, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 621–631, 1993), which advocated a regressionbased method for obtaining effect sizes in single-subject studies. They contend that their PND approach has several advantages over our approach because: (1) they believe that, unlike ours, it can take advantage of the small number of observations that are typically available in single-case studies; (2) it is simple to compute; (3) it frees researchers from traditional regression assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and independence of observations and residuals; and (4) it correlates with visual judgements made by experts. As we shall argue, these claims are built upon very questionable assumptions and they are very difficult to substantiate. In addition, we show that the expected value of the PND is so strongly related to sample size as to be rendered meaningless.