Reply to the comments of Block and Ozer.

Replies to the comments of J. Block and D. J. Ozer (see record 1983-00123-001). The key issues in their argument are examined and found to be unpersuasive. The present authors' remarks are divided into 3 sections: conceptual issues, data-analytic issues, and broader issues in personality research and typological thinking. Additional empirical evidence is presented to bolster the contentions originally presented by the 2nd author et al (see record 1983-00168-001). (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Stagner.

This is written in response to Ross Stagner's comments (see record 2005-11890-003) concerning the publication of books of readings. First, it is my experience that it is far easier to author a book than edit readings. I don't assume that people who write the original articles that finally find themselves in a book of readings are any more creative than the editors. I don't know how much of a reputation any one gets from authorship or editing a readings book. As for "good solid cash" (to use Stagner's words) I have yet to see some and my experience is not unique. I have paid out a considerable amount of money in secretarial fees alone. If I recoup the money I have expended I will be fortunate. As for so-called profits, if I send one copy of the book to each author and his co-author(s) who contributed an article for a book of readings--well, there goes the "good solid cash." Second, there are many articles that are rescued from the scrap pile by a book of readings. My suggestion is that after the editor of a readings book recoups his expenses in preparing the book, copies of the book be sent to clinics or libraries which are on a limited budget. Copies may even be sent to some of the "underprivileged nations." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Fiedorowicz.

We appreciate the fact that Fiedorowicz has chosen to comment on our review of Reading disabilities (see record 2007-03865-001) because this provides us with an opportunity to expand on some of our previous remarks. However, since these positive features already had received coverage in the review by Goodacre (1982), and since over two-thirds of the book dealt with the authors' own research (which was not discussed in any depth by Goodacre), we chose to restrict ourselves mainly to concerns raised by this research. Our response will have the same focus. To begin with, there are a number of misleading statements in Fiedorowicz's letter that distort both the tone and the content of our review. Fiedorowicz contends, contrary to the conclusion that we reached in our review, that "distinct neuropsychological profiles were determined corresponding to each subtype." The second issue raised by Fiedorowicz deals with our concern about the construct validity of the various test items employed in this investigation. The third issue in Fiedorowicz's letter centres on the interpretation of the results reported by Doehring et al. for the Type S subjects. The last issue of any substance in this letter has to do with the label "oral reading deficit" given by the authors to the Type O subjects. In addition to these four issues there is one final point that we believe also merits a reply. In referring rather pessimistically to the matter of treatment in our review, we were merely repeating comments made by the authors themselves in Chapter 11. Because this review was written in August 1983, we were of course unaware of the information in the paper cited by Fiedorowicz, which was not presented until February 1984. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Leong.

Reply to the comment by Che Kan Leong (see record 2007-07332-017). Downing and Leong take issue with my statement, "The authors recommend some variation of the IQ/achievement discrepancy formula as a definition of reading disability." It appears to me that they are, in fact, recommending an IQ/achievement discrepancy formula. The source for my statement is the discussion on pages 305-306 of Downing and Leong, in particular, the statement on p. 306: "Overall, the regression approach is generally sound and statistically defensible." The regression approach that Downing and Leong discuss is one in which a child's reading level (as measured by a particular test) is related to the child's score on an IQ test. As I noted in my review, this type of equation assumes that IQ and reading can be measured independently are likely to be deficient in the reading-disabled individual, a child with a real reading disability may have spuriously low IQ scores but may not be diagnosed as reading disabled because of a low IQ score. Until investigators agree on some operational definitions or at least attempt to study questions as a function of different operational definitions, advancement in this field will be difficult to achieve. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Algina.

Responds to J. Algina's criticism of the present author's article on intraclass correlation reliability coefficients (1976). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Levy and to Zaidel.

Responds to J. Levy's (see record 1984-07813-001) and E. Zaidel's (see record 1984-07231-001) comments on the present author's (see record 1984-07149-001) review of right-hemisphere language in split-brain patients. The present author replies to Levy's issues-oriented criticisms in which Levy contended that Gazzaniga characterized the right hemisphere as passive and subhuman; Gazzaniga denies this. The present author then responds to Zaidel's comments by reiterating his belief that there is no right-hemisphere profile for natural language. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Clemmer.

Responds to comments by E. J. Clemmer (see record 1987-05931-001) concerning the present author's (see record 1986-13291-001) discussion of the occurrence of ESP in dreams, suggesting that Clemmer's interpretation is based largely on analogies from other areas of parapsychological research and an a priori rejection of parapsychological phenomena. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Beckman-Bishop.

Responds to the paper by L. Beckman and B.R. Bishop (see record 1990-56846-001 and asserts that the final section of that paper on "Safeguards" is central to the research ethics issue and define the relationship between the experimenter and research subjects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Edgington.

Agrees with E. S. Edgington's (see PA, Vol. 51:Issue 1) assertion that randomization tests should be used when parametric assumptions cannot be met, but takes issue with the implication that parametric statistics are inapplicable in most experimental studies involving random assignment to treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Hyman and to Levy.

Replies to the objections of A. Hyman (1981) and S. M. Levy (1981) concerning the author's (see record 1980-10503-001) rejection of psychotherapy as the treatment of choice in health-habit modification (HHM). The case is restated for a shift away from an emphasis on intrapsychic variables in HHM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Baron.

Comments on J. Baron's article on the relevance of experimental psychology (American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 713-716),arguing that it would be good if APA, or better still an organization outside the APA, would appoint a team of psychologists of different persuasions to help the government allocate funds for psychological research. It would be a good idea, too, for another team to evaluate such research in terms of whether it is reaching its objectives and to make recommendations as to whether it should be allowed to continue. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Sprott.

Replies to comments by D. A. Sprott (see record 2005-09606-003) on the current author's original article (see record 1968-09688-001). The original purpose of the illustration was to show that analysis of covariance could leave a statistically significant residual treatment effect even though there was no treatment effect in the variate not predictable from the covariate. As to our statement that there is a "significant effect even when none was present," the context of the paragraph should make it clear that the word none refers to "no treatment effect in the variate not predictable from the covariate." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Prediger.

Responds to D. J. Prediger's (see record 1980-20237-001) criticism of the comparison by the present author et al (see record 1979-27466-001) of the Self-Directed Search (raw-scored), Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (norm-scored), and a combination of the 2 measures. Additional research is reported to guide future study of the impact of interest inventories. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Mahrer.

Replies to Mahrer's response (see record 2007-09057-001) to the current author's book review (see record 2007-09053-001). Mahrer raises some important questions and submits that different approaches differ significantly in the categories they use to make sense of what clients do, and that each has its own way of eliciting, listening to and observing what the client says and does. I agree that approaches differ on these features and believe that what we listen for and how we make sense of what we hear is the most fundamental aspect of any therapeutic approach. In fact training in an approach involves not only learning the intervention skills of the approach, which is the easy part, but learning when and how to use the intervention, which is based on listening and process diagnosis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Lantz.

Responds to criticism by C. E. Lantz (see record 1984-25697-001) regarding the present author's (see record 1983-13109-001) identification of Calvinism as a philosophy that impedes primary prevention efforts involving social change. The illness model of mental disorders is thought to be supportive of this philosophy. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Silverman.

Responds to commentary by I. Silverman (see record 2007-08963-001) entitled "Review of Pure types are rare": Comment on book review. I do not think that either one of us will change his position, and therefore it is up to the interested (yet disinterested) reader to adjudicate our dispute by checking Professor Silverman's book and his references. In the process, the reader will be forced to consider the thought-provoking implications for our mental health system of some of the incidents which the author describes so vividly, and that will not be a bad thing. There is one point, however, which is worth pursuing further here, for Professor Silverman persists in an elementary statistical fallacy. Let us take the situation which he cites, where the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia is 50%. Suppose with the same base rate the degree of agreement is in fact 53%; this is far above chance level. It must be emphasized, however, that the 53% agreement under discussion came not from a study where the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia was 50%, but from one where the conditions were far more stringent since the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia was around 20%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Cohen.

Suggests that the comment by the present author and colleagues (see record 1986-10765-001), that the perceived stress scale (PSS) developed by S. Cohen et al (see record 1984-24885-001) was inherently circular, was mainly a reaction to the face characteristics of the items of the scale. It is conceded that data showing that the PSS contributed modestly but significantly to health outcomes independently of psychological symptomatology should have been taken into consideration. Advantages and disadvantages of the hassles scale developed by the present authors and colleagues are discussed. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Humphreys and to Jensen.

Replies to L. G. Humphrey's (see PA, Vol 56:Issue 2) and A. R. Jensen's (see PA, Vol 56:Issue 2) criticisms of the authors' study on the effects of verbal strategy training on race differences in nonverbal reasoning test performance. The authors agree with Humphrey's argument that significant interactions cannot be proven with nested designs, although it is pointed out that his suggestion that there were large numbers of low-scoring Ss in both groups who did not understand the directions is misleading, since it ignores the other low scorers who were merely inefficient problem solvers. It is also argued that Jensen's implication that demonstrations of training effects are irrelevant for conclusions about racial genetic differences or the absence of such differences is incorrect because successful training logically eliminates the possibility of genetic inabilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Poulton.

Contends that E. C. Poulton (see record 1993-02081-001), in his caveat against the use of within-Ss experimental designs in psychological research, carried his case too far. Repeated measures in some contexts did produce effects as a result of administering more than a single treatment to each S. The literature as surveyed by Poulton, however, did not rule out such designs as a general methodology. His survey was not representative of the psychological literature as a whole. Most of the studies cited conformed to a circumscribed area of research in which cumulative treatment effects were investigated for their own sake. Further, in a number of instances studies were misrepresented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Carman.

Comments on the article by Philip M. Carman (see record 1990-55857-001), in which he discussed the work of professional psychologists. The current author suggests that he was somewhat surprised to note that Carman overlooked diagnostic (or "psychodiagnostic") testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)