Trauma coping of mothers and children among poor people in Haiti: Mixed methods study of community-level research.

A qualitative interview is sensitive to social complexities and personal subjectivities, whereas quantitative assessment relies on preexisting frameworks to place responses in hierarchical frequencies and counts individual experiences as an additive aggregate. Using both enquiries, a mixed methods sequential exploratory design studied mothers' focus groups and their children's trauma assessment in 3 poor communities in the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The authors partnered with a free primary care clinic where they serve as U.S. behavioral health psychologists. The study enquired how Haitian children are socialized by their mothers'/caregivers' religious and nonreligious coping in the context of continuous trauma. Focus group questions for mothers (n = 27), the House-Tree-Person (HTP) drawing test for their children (n = 42), and their directions were translated, back-translated, and administered in Haitian Créole by trained Haitian staff members. Religious, African humanism, and shame stigma themes emerged from the focus groups. Correlations and multiple regressions examined relationships of the frequencies of the mothers' coping themes and with their children's scores on 2 factorial dimensions, Resilience-Vulnerability Integrated and Person Feeling Unloved. These conceptual factors were derived from culturally adapted ratings of children's HTP drawings in previous studies in the same communities (Roysircar, Colvin, Afolayan, Thompson, & Robertson, 2017; Roysircar, Geisinger, & Thompson, 2019). Significant negative relationships of religious and African humanism coping with shame stigma coping and their respective significant negative and positive relationships with children's trauma adjustment scores are integrated in a mixed methods design, related to the African diaspora literature, and approached with transnational feminist theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping "Junk Science" Out of the Courtroom?

In this article, we report the results of a two-part investigation of psychological assessments by psychologists in legal contexts. The first part involves a systematic review of the 364 psychological assessment tools psychologists report having used in legal cases across 22 surveys of experienced forensic mental health practitioners, focusing on legal standards and scientific and psychometric theory. The second part is a legal analysis of admissibility challenges with regard to psychological assessments. Results from the first part reveal that, consistent with their roots in psychological science, nearly all of the assessment tools used by psychologists and offered as expert evidence in legal settings have been subjected to empirical testing (90%). However, we were able to clearly identify only about 67% as generally accepted in the field and only about 40% have generally favorable reviews of their psychometric and technical properties in authorities such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Furthermore, there is a weak relationship between general acceptance and favorability of tools' psychometric properties. Results from the second part show that legal challenges to the admission of this evidence are infrequent: Legal challenges to the assessment evidence for any reason occurred in only 5.1% of cases in the sample (a little more than half of these involved challenges to validity). When challenges were raised, they succeeded only about a third of the time. Challenges to the most scientifically suspect tools are almost nonexistent. Attorneys rarely challenge psychological expert assessment evidence, and when they do, judges often fail to exercise the scrutiny required by law.

Testing the Validity of GRE Scores on Predicting Graduate Performance for National and International Engineering Students / Capacidad Predictiva de los Puntajes REG sobre el Rendimiento de Graduados Nacionales e Internacionales de Ingeniería

Abstract Numerous research studies have examined the validity of GRE scores in predicting graduate success, however, some limitations still exist. This study targeted graduate engineering programs and investigated the validity of GRE scores in predicting graduate engineering GPA (GGPA). In addition, the differences in the validity of GRE scores between American and international students and between masters' and doctoral students were compared. The GRE's incremental predictive ability over undergraduate GPA (UGPA) and TOEFL scores was examined. Data were obtained from 1083 students from the engineering programs in a large, comprehensive midwestern university. Results indicated that GRE was useful in forecasting GGPA of graduate engineering students. The GRE scores explained more criterion variance for American students than for international students, but statistically significant differences were only found when GRE-Quantitative predicted GGPA. The GRE-Verbal and GRE-Quantitative scores had different patterns in predicting graduate grades for master's and doctoral students. UGPA was found to be a very strong predictor, and TOEFL scores were significantly correlated with the criterion variables. GRE scores, however, were found to have significant incremental validity over UGPA and TOEFL scores. TOEFL scores were less able to make predictions.

Resumen Gran cantidad de estudios han examinado la validez de puntajes REG (Registro de Examinación de Graduados) como predictores del éxito de graduación, aunque aún existen algunas limitaciones. Este estudio se enfocó en programas de ingeniería y evaluó la validez de puntajes REG como predictor del GPA (Grade Point Average, Puntaje Promedio de Calificaciones) (GGPA). Adicionalmente, las diferencias en la validez de puntajes REG entre los estudiantes americanos e internacionales, así como los puntajes entre estudiantes de maestría y doctorado, fueron comparadas. La capacidad predictiva incremental del REG sobre el GPA de los estudiantes de pregrado (UGPA) y los puntajes TOEFL también fue evaluada. Se obtuvieron datos de 1083 estudiantes de programas de ingeniería de una universidad grande de la zona centro-oeste. Los resultados indicaron que el REG fue útil como predictor del GGPA de los estudiantes de ingeniería. Los puntajes REG explicaron mayor cantidad de varianza para estudiantes americanos que para estudiantes internacionales, aunque sólo se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas cuando el REG cuantitativo predijo GGPA. Los puntajes REG verbal y REG cuantitativo presentaron puntajes diferentes al predecir calificaciones de los graduados de maestría y doctorado. El puntaje UPGA resultó ser un buen predictor, y los puntajes del TOEFL estuvieron correlacionados significativamente con las variables de criterio. Los puntajes REG, sin embargo, resultaron tener validez incremental significativa por encime de los puntajes UGPA y TOEFL. Los puntajes TOEFL fueron menos capaces de hacer predicciones.

Cuarta evaluación de tests editados en España: forma y fondo / Fourth review of tests published in Spain: form and content

La evaluación de tests y divulgación de las memorias resultantes se ha implantado en el panorama internacional con el claro objetivo de mejorar el uso de los tests, y con ello la práctica profesional. Se trata de una herramienta que ofrece al usuario de tests una revisión independiente sujeta a procedimientos y criterios definidos. En España se han llevado a cabo cuatro ediciones del proyecto de evaluación liderado por el Consejo General de la Psicología (COP). Básicamente existen dos modelos de evaluación de tests, el modelo Buros y el modelo de la European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA), utilizado por el COP. Ambos, comparten objetivos y contenido, y excluyendo varias cuestiones de formato y gestión, el fondo en ambos modelos es el mismo. En este trabajo se ofrecen los resultados de la cuarta edición del proyecto de evaluación de tests del COP adecuándolos a las pautas generales que sigue un procedimiento de evaluación de tests, y mostrando los puntos críticos en cada fase del proceso

Assessing the quality of tests and disseminating the test results has been implemented in the international arena with the aim of improving testing and professional practice. Assessing tests provides users with an independent review, which follows clearly defined procedures and criteria. In Spain, the Spanish Association of Psychology (COP) leads the "test evaluation" project, which has recently completed its fourth edition. Basically, there are two primary assessment models; the Buros model and the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) model, which has been adopted by the COP. The two models share the same objectives and content; excluding the evaluation format and the management system, they are similar in essence. In this paper, we present the results of the fourth edition of the Spanish test evaluation program following the general guidelines for assessing the quality of tests, and we explain the critical points affecting each phase of the process

The Matching Criterion Purification for Differential Item Functioning Analyses in a Large-Scale Assessment.

The current study investigated the impact of matching criterion purification on the accuracy of differential item functioning (DIF) detection in large-scale assessments. The three matching approaches for DIF analyses (block-level matching, pooled booklet matching, and equated pooled booklet matching) were employed with the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Five factors-the length of a test, the proportion of items exhibiting DIF, a sample size, a ratio of a reference and focal group, and the existence of an average ability difference between two groups-were manipulated. The three matching approaches were used with and without purification. Also, a systematic test form difference was considered. The results indicated that overall, matching criterion purification in the three approaches contributed to the improvement of power in the detection of DIF. Depending on the psychometric characteristics of items exhibiting DIF and the existence of an average ability difference, the amount of power improvement due to matching criterion purification was different across the three approaches. The purification of a matching criterion contributed to the slight reduction of Type I error rates in the three approaches when no mean ability difference existed between the two groups. Considering power improvement with the control of Type I error rates, the purification of a matching criterion in the pooled booklet matching and the equated pooled booklet matching approaches can be recommended for DIF analyses in large-scale assessments.

Are pathologists accurately diagnosing eosinophilic esophagitis in children? A 9-year single academic institutional experience with interobserver observations.

Our aims were to evaluate (a) whether the incidence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) in children has increased, (b) whether the histologic diagnosis of EE has been accurate, and (c) potential interobserver variability in the counting of intraepithelial eosinophils in esophageal biopsies. A total of 1215 pediatric endoscopic esophageal biopsies were performed. In total, 289 biopsies were reviewed by one pathologist based on one of the following original histologic diagnoses: EE, reflux esophagitis (RE), or acute/chronic inflammation. EE was diagnosed when at least one high-power field (HPF) contained > or = 20 intraepithelial eosinophils. According to the first pathologist, 104 biopsies had a histologic diagnosis of EE; the prevalence remained relatively stable, ranging from 5.5 to 11 per 100 biopsies annually. In 36 cases, the reporting pathologist correctly diagnosed EE, and in another 34, EE was included in the differential diagnosis. From January 1997 to December 1998, the pathologist either correctly diagnosed EE or included it in the differential diagnosis in 6/13 cases. In contrast, from January 2004 to December 2005, 32/37 cases were included. In 34/104 cases, EE was misdiagnosed as RE. No case of RE was misdiagnosed as EE.A total of 58 cases had pathology reports that quantified the densest number of eosinophils per HPF. The agreement rate was 94.8%, with a kappa value of 0.888. The incidence of EE in children has been stable from January 1997 to December 2005. Overall, pathologists recognized EE in two thirds of cases. The increased diagnostic accuracy over time suggests pathologists are more aware of EE.

Cross-validation of the factor structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire.

Low back pain patients' responses to the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) were factor analyzed using the principal factor method and direct oblique rotation procedures. Four factors were extracted that accounted for 55% of the total variance. Coefficients of congruence were computed in order to relate the current factors with those extracted in a previous factor analytic investigation. The results provided positive evidence that the sensory pressure, evaluative, and affective-sensory factors that were previously identified are stable dimensions underlying the MPQ responses of low back pain patients. However, it is necessary to conduct further cross-validation studies using patients from a wide variety of treatment settings.

The language of low back pain: factor structure of the McGill pain questionnaire.

Low back pain patients' responses to the McGill Pain Questionnaire were factor analyzed using a method of factor extraction which, relative to the procedures employed in previous investigations, minimized distortion of the factor solution. Four factors were found which accounted for 51% of the total variance. Three of the factors were composed solely of sensory, affective and evaluative descriptor subclasses, respectively. The fourth was defined by both sensory and affective subclasses. The results provided strong support for the continued use of the sensory, affective and evaluative pain rating indices. Suggestions regarding replication of the present study and use of pain language factor scales for predictive purposes were discussed.