FULL AND ERRANT COACHING EFFECTS ON ASSIGNED ROLE LEADERLESS GROUP DISCUSSION PERFORMANCE

The effect of coaching on Leaderless Group Discussion Performance was examined. Thirty-six female undergraduate subjects participated in six-person assigned role leaderless group discussions. Trained observers evaluated performances in each discussion, which included two 5s from each of three coaching conditions. Ss in full coaching condition received extensive coaching on proper group discussion performance. 5s in the errant coaching condition received improper, but believable, coaching. 5s in the naive, or control, condition received no coaching. Results showed that 5s in the full coaching conditions were rated significantly higher than 5s in the errant or naive conditions. The results were discussed in the light of previous research.     

SOME FURTHER IDEAS ON A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING JOB SIMILARITIES/ DIFFERENCES

This paper considers the general problem of analyzing data for job similarities/differences. Cluster analysis and univariate analysis of variance, which are recent suggestions for attacking this problem, are briefly reviewed. The suggestion made in this paper is to use multivariate analysis of variance, accompanied by a multivariate extension of the well known proportion of variance index, ω². Discriminant analysis and related techniques are suggested to provide information regarding specific hypotheses. The potential users are provided with the references to well known computer packages that allow all the analyses to be performed easily, rapidly, and accurately on their own data. Appropriate interpretations of each result are also indicated, and illustrated with an example.     

A successful trial utilizing the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology for evaluation of psychoanalytic treatment: Preliminary report

Utilizing audio-recorded psychoanalytic interviews of both patients and their analysts, group discussions of these interviews, and the application of questionnaires commonly used in psychotherapy research, the authors investigate the potential use of the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology as an objective evaluative instrument to assess the quality of psychoanalytic treatment. Preliminary study results were obtained through interviews conducted with seven analysts and their respective patients, three of whom were treated with psychoanalysis (three or more sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year) and four with psychotherapy (one or two sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year). Patients were found to be eager to participate, and no adverse experiences were reported by analysts, patients or the research team. In addition to the interviews, further data were obtained through review of mailed-in questionnaires completed by 21 patients. The authors present both preliminary observations regarding the methodology as a whole, as well as the detailed results of one specifi c case subject treated with psychotherapy. Review of study fi ndings supports the utilization of this methodology as an evaluative instrument which may ultimately advance current knowledge of the process and outcome of psychoanalytic treatment.     

A COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES WHICH TEST FOR JOB DIFFERENCES

There has been a recent trend in research seeking the most appropriate statistical technique for determining job similarities/differences. Monte Carlo methods were used to analyze more closely the repeated measures analysis of variance and the multivariate analysis of variance in order to add further insight into the viability of these techniques for this purpose. The conventional univariate analysis of variance, the ε-adjusted univariate F test, and the ε-adjusted univariate F test were compared to three multivariate tests (Roy's largest-root criterion, Wilk's likelihood ratio, and the Pillai-Barlett trace) in terms of power and control for Type I error when (1) circularity and homogeneity were met, (2) homogeneity was met but circularity was violated, (3) homogeneity was violated but circularity was met, and (4) both homogeneity and circularity were violated. The efficacy of the techniques was shown to be contingent upon whether the assumptions were met or not. The univariate test proved to be the better technique when circularity was met. The multivariate technique proved to be the better test when homogeneity was met while circularity was violated. The results were mixed when both circularity and homogeneity were violated. Guidelines for selecting a statistical technique which tests for job differences are offered.