Stages in human mental growth.

R. B. McCall's (see record 1988-32308-001) article in this journal criticizing some of H. T. Epstein's (e.g., 1978) studies of brain and mind growth is shown to suffer from 2 main flaws. First, he was not aware of the need for analysis in terms of concurrences among studies rather than standard statistical analyses of individual studies. Second, he did not use increment spans appropriate for the data. He also wrongly claimed that Epstein advocated changes in educational policies and practices without caveats that carefully labeled these as suggestions for working hypotheses to be tested in the schools. Finally, his criticisms of the brain growth stages had already been invalidated in a 1986 article by Epstein which he did not cite. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A more natural approach for use in the evaluation of infants' stranger reactions.

Proposes an approach to 7-12 mo old infants in seeking to evaluate their social, emotional, cognitive, and/or physiological responses to a stranger, in a fashion that is consistent with a standardization that controls a multitude of possible variables while retaining sufficient spontaneity to prevent the stranger from appearing peculiar to the child. The approach is semistructured but integrates the findings of a previous study by R. Shaffran (1972) which concluded that the ideal way to avoid inhibition of stranger behavior imposed by a structured approach was not to standardize it and to do a post-facto analysis of the stranger-child interaction. In the proposed approach, the naive stranger is very spontaneous, he introduces several actions (as compared with one action) at once, he speaks frequently in various tones using various phrases, and he includes the mother in the interaction with the child. (French summary) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Left to Right, Upside Down.

Comments on the D. O. Hebb article (see record 1964-01548-001), which considers theories concerned with the analysis of the complexity of the "central process" in thought and perception. The present author notes that reading of type by the printer who sets type by hand is quite different from the way Hebb describes. The printer always reads print from left to right, with the characters (letters) upside down. At the beginning of his apprenticeship, he is specifically instructed that he must never under any circumstances allow himself to read in the right-to-left, right-side-up manner that Hebb describes him as reading it. The author also argues that Hebb's error with regard to the question of how printers perceive type is not unrelated to his Jungian-like concept that the self-image is of only two parts, rather than of three parts as in the Freudian tradition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Clinical psychology in other lands": Correction and Thanks.

Reports two inaccuracies in the paper by Henry P. David, Clinical psychology in other lands. In D. Brower & L. E. Abt (Eds.), Progress in clinical psychology. Vol. III. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1958; (see record 1959-08255-000), which mentions the article by R. Zajonc (see record 1959-02442-001) concerning psychology in Poland. In this correction, Choynowski affirms that he is head, not of the Psychology Section of the Polish Academy of Sciences (which does not exist), but of the Psychometrical Laboratory of this academy to which belong many research institutes. Secondly, he states that the academy also does not envisage a subsection on clinical psychology. He notes that he is afraid that David got these facts from him, but then it is another example of unfortunate semantical misunderstanding in international communication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More on the identity-equivalence sequence: An update and some replies to Miller.

Responds to S. A. Miller's criticism of the present authors' study on identity and equivalence conservation (see record 1975-31383-001). It is suggested that Miller's criticism is in error as he attempts to propose theoretical explanations for the task, criterion–task, and age–task effects he attacks, thereby implying their existence. It is concluded that analysis has shown, in most studies, these effects to be in the medium-to-large range. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Varieties of achievement motivation.

Criticizes the analysis of J. G. Nicholls (see record 1984-28719-001) in which he has distinguished between 2 types of achievement-related goals, each of which is said to have different behavioral consequences. It is contended that (1) the definitions of the newly distinguished achievement motives are themselves ambiguous, (2) the behavioral consequences predicted by Nicholls do not follow from the explicit assumptions of his theory, and (3) Nicholls's account of the relation between his theory and other achievement theories is factually incorrect. An alternative conception is briefly described, according to which there are at least 4 achievement motives, each with distinctive behavioral consequences. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget's thought.

Reviews the book, Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget's thought by Michael Chapman (see record 1988-97990-000). Canadian developmental psychologists have been among the harshest critics, most articulate supporters, and most creative extenders of Piaget's theory. Michael Chapman's book is in this reflective and interpretive tradition. Chapman's primary goal in the book is neither to criticize, support, nor extend Piaget's theory (although he does some of each), but to clarify the meaning of the theory, and to specify its domain of application. Chapman does this by tracing the growth of Piaget's thinking using Piaget's autobiographical papers as a map. The first six chapters comprise Chapman's historical analysis, which begins with Piaget's adolescence, a point in life where Piaget was later to say that cognitive development ends (although he was to retract the claim still later in his career). In the last two chapters of the book, Chapman uses his historical analysis to clarify the philosophical and psychological significance of Piaget's theory. Chapman's book is an excellent integration of Piaget's theory in that it places the theory in the context of the questions that motivated it. But for all the clarity that Chapman's historical analysis brings to Piaget's thought, the analysis opens a number of new questions. What Chapman has done successfully is to provide a view of the nature, limits, and future of Piagetian theory by examining its origins and evolution. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In search of an evaluative factor: Comments on de Broeck.

Argues that P. de Boeck's (see record 1979-22559-001) analysis of the author's (see record 1968-03876-001) analysis of trait scales is related to 2 contexts: the traditional methods of factor analysis and the substantive history of an evaluative factor. Three issues are considered: (a) Because de Boeck's procedure differs from the one that is traditional for ability tests, features of the trait inference data that make his analysis possible are examined. (b) Since de Boeck's evaluative factor differs from the historical one that was clearly the largest, the relative importance of evaluation is determined. (c) When de Boeck discards the traditional policy of rotation to simple structure, a justification for a more explicit general argument is considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Why expect a horse to fly?

Criticizes D. Wahlsten's (see record 1995-08480-001) discussion of heritability, in which he constructs a caricature, conflates a statistical test with a conceptual model, and confuses levels of analysis. The author argues that, despite flaws, heritability deals with genetic and environmental variance at the level of the population, providing information about the potential for natural selection and environmental intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Anger, Frustration, and Aversiveness.

Comments on the literature review by Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones (see record 2004-15096-001) that evaluates leading theories of anger for which they offer their own theory of aggression as an integration. The current author suggests that their theory leads to a number of empirical questions, which he examines, and he suggests that individual differences should also be considered in formulating theories of aggression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"How anti-gay bias compromised a treatment: A commentary on Meissner (2006)": Reply.

Responds to the comments made by Michael C. Singer (see record 2008-00996-012) on the current author's original article, "Time on my hands: The dilemma of the chronically late patient" (see record 2006-20697-003). The current author states "I am grateful to Dr. Singer for his interest and stringent criticism. However, in reading his commentary I had the odd feeling that I was being caustically attacked for views expressed in an article I did not write. However, perhaps the deficiency is mine in that my expression failed to achieve an adequate level of clarity and precision." The author regrets that he could not write an article to suit Dr. Singer's tastes, and that in the article he did write there were unavoidable gaps and deficiencies in the material because of the time constraints and distortions in the analysis. (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)     

Casting stones: A reply to Humphreys.

Contends that the critique by L. G. Humphreys (see record 1982-24859-001) of the present author's (see record 1981-06882-001) article is vitiated by the facts that (a) the article he criticizes was an invited position paper and not an original presentation of data, so that detailed statistical testing would have been inappropriate to the purpose of the article; (b) Humphreys commits in his reply some of the "misdeeds" of which he accuses the present author; (c) contrary to Humphrey's assertion, the number of cases in the 3 nonentrenchment experiments (74) is more than adequate for drawing conclusions of the sort made; and (d) Humphreys misinterprets his own z tests. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Purpose for Culture-Fair.

Comments on the article by Alexander G. Wesman (see record 1968-18802-001), in which he proposed an organization of intelligence as a composite of all past learning experiences and discussed intelligence tests and what they truly measure. The current author responds to a point Wesman made, which implied that the Culture-Fair test had been designed for no sound purpose. It is suggested that one way to distinguish between the child who truly cannot benefit from regular class instruction and one who could would be to get some measure of what he has acquired (learned) from his particular subculture. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sense and nonsense in hierarchical regression analysis: Comment on Smyth.

Contrasts ANCOVA via hierarchical regression analysis with hierarchical analyses used by L. D. Smyth (see record 1983-07281-001) in his article on psychopathology as a function of neuroticism. It is shown that Smyth's analyses did not address the hypotheses he wished to test and that the results yielded by these analyses are meaningless. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Misuse of Covariance.

Responds to comments made by D. R. Harris, C. T. Bisbee, and S. H. Evans (see record 1971-09169-001) on the original article "Note on Evans and Anastasio on the Analysis of Covariance," by D. A. Sprott (see record 1970-09565-001), which corrected data in the article by S. H. Evans and L. J. Anastasio (see record 1968-09688-001). The purpose of the current author's note was to show that there is no substitute for thought. The analysis of covariance, even when treatment and covariate are correlated, can be useful and valid when in the hands of a scientist who knows his data, knows what he is doing, and is prepared to think about the interpretation of his analyses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Determining the Optimal Number of Psychologists and Psychology Training Programs: A Cautionary Note.

Marwit (1982, see record 1982-28952-001) argues persuasively for the benefits of university affiliation for schools of professional psychology. However, as part of his discussion, he draws on questionable data in citing the need for additional training programs of this kind. His argument depends on the juxtaposition of epidemiological data, which summarize the prevalence of psychological disorder, and service-availability data. Because there are insufficient practitioners to serve the psychologically disturbed population, Marwit concludes that more practitioners are needed. Marwit's analysis fails to attend to several important considerations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do our psychological laws apply only to Americans?

Comments on an article by J. J. Arnett (see record 2008-14338-003) regarding the assertion that American psychology focuses too narrowly on Americans while neglecting the other 95% of the world’s population. The authors challenge Arnett's methodology in his research and question the ways in which he drew his conclusions. They claim that a major weakness of Arnett’s argumentation is that he failed to distinguish between research that tests general laws of behavior and research aimed at describing the impact of societal factors on behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Static structuralism.

R. L. Ebel (see record 1962-05654-001) examines present concepts regarding test validity and comes to the conclusion that psychologists concerned with this problem are asking essentially unanswerable questions. This startling point of view is bolstered by evidence that many useful tests do not have adequate validity data published in their support and that reviewers of tests seem unconcerned by the lack of such data. Ebel then courageously calls into question the accepted "face validity" of the concept of validity and suggests that the meaningfulness of a test be substituted as a criterion. In a later issue of this journal, Jordan (see record 2005-11890-001) and Skager (see record 2005-11890-002), react. Skager is conservative and implies that the problem is a technical one. For him, the correct questions to be asked are known. Problems occur because we fail to ask the obvious and familiar question regarding validity or because technique is insufficiently developed to generate measures with adequate validity but then we know our limitations. Jordan points out that Ebel's suggestion of substituting meaningfulness for validity begs the question. He argues that meaningfulness rests on an appropriate theoretical analysis of the problem which must precede measurement operations and that, if the theoretical analysis is meaningful and valid, the measurement operations will follow of their own accord. The merit of Ebel's paper is that he calls into question glib pronunciamentos that have characterized the theory of test construction. He is aware that something is amiss and implicates the validity issue. Skager clings to the traditional approach and, in effect, denies the problem. Jordan agrees that the problem exists and pinpoints the area of difficulty but neither he nor the other writers suggest the explicit theoretical contents that may give rise to the whole problem in the first place. I would like to suggest that the real culprit is that dominant theoretical bias, more or less explicit in most test construction, which I will term "static structuralism." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)