Kurt F. Geisinger

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

&NA; 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 evaluate 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 evaluate pain rating indices. Suggestions regarding replication of the present study and use of pain language factor scales for predictive purposes were discussed.

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

Abstract 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.

Using subject-matter experts to assess content representation: An MDS analysis

Demonstration of content domain representation is of central importance in test validation. An expanded version of the method of content evaluation proposed by Sireci & Geisinger (1992) was evaluated with respect to a national licensure examination and a nationally standardized social studies achievement test. Two groups of 15 subject-matter experts (SMEs) rated the similarity of all item pairs comprising a test, and then rated the relevance of the items to the con tent domains listed in the test blueprints. The similar ity ratings were analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS); the item relevance ratings were ana lyzed using procedures proposed by Hambleton (1984) and Aiken (1980). The SMES perceptions of the underlying content structures of the tests emerged in the MDS solutions. All dimensions were germane to the content domains measured by the tests. Some of these dimensions were consistent with the content structure specified in the test blueprint, others were not. Correlation and regression analyses of the MDS item coordinates and item relevance ratings indicated that using both item similarity and item relevance data provided greater information of content repre sentation than did using either approach alone. The implications of the procedure for test validity are dis cussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Responding to graduate students' professional deficiencies: A national survey

Seventy-one doctoral programs in professional psychology were surveyed with respect to the incidence of students professional deficiencies and related procedures. Professional deficiencies, particularly limited clinical skills and personality/emotional problems, were reported by 89% of the respondents, twice the number that have official policies for dealing with such problems. Incidence of limited clinical skills was related positively to interviewing applicants and use of practicum grades for evaluation and related negatively to using recommendation letters and reliance on clinical supervisors assessment. Responses to deficiencies reflected appropriate due process concepts and were most likely to include terminating students and psychotherapy referral. Recommendations are made for definitions of professional competencies, development of policies, and research on the reliability and validity of screening and evaluation mechanisms.

Analyzing Test Content Using Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling

A new method for evaluating the content representation of a test is illustrated. Item similari ty ratings were obtained from content domain ex perts in order to assess whether their ratings cor responded to item groupings specified in the test blueprint. Three expert judges rated the similarity of items on a 30-item multiple-choice test of study skills. The similarity data were analyzed using a multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure followed by a hierarchical cluster analysis of the MDS stimulus coordinates. The results indicated a strong correspondence between the similarity data and the arrangement of items as prescribed in the test blueprint. The findings suggest that analyzing item similarity data with MDS and cluster analysis can provide substantive information pertaining to the content representation of a test. The advantages and disadvantages of using MDS and cluster analysis with item similarity data are discussed.

The Prediction of Graduate School Success in Psychology

Traditional graduate school admissons indices (three GRE tests, MATs, and GPAs) were used to predict performance on a screening examination called the Masters Comprehensive. The 114 students admitted between 1974 and 1978 were grouped by both year of entrance and doctoral program (clinical or experimental psychology). With respect to the five predictors, no mean differences were found relating to year of entrance, however, the results yielded significant mean differences between experimental and clinical students on four of the five predictors. Separate regression analyses were performed for the two programs. For both equations a significant portion of the Masters Comprehensive score variance was explained using GRE-Verbal alone. Addition of the other four predictors did not significantly improve the predictability of the equation. A regression equation combining both programs produced a similar multiple R, again using GRE-V alone.

Who Are Giving All Those A's? An Examination of High-Grading College Faculty.

Grading is a complex activity in which all faculty participate. Although grading has a serious impact on students, university policies typically provide little guidance for faculty in performing this endeavor (Travers & Gronlund, 1950). In the absence of guidance, individual differences in faculty grading behavior abound. Yet the grading of college students rarely has been investigated from the perspective of the faculty member and more information is clearly needed. For example, faculty members could design their practices accordingly if they knew in advance how their grading practices affected students’ work and study behaviors. Milton (1979) has shown that the use of essay examinations instead of objective tests increases students’ learning. Differences in grading practices stem from two main theories concerning grading; the first has to do with the kinds or bases of information faculty use in evaluating students; the second, with the general elevation of the marks assigned. Travers and Gronlund demonstrated that the

A Construct Validation of Faculty Orientations Toward Grading: Comparative Data From Three Institutions

This investigation added to the construct validation of four faculty attitudes about grading. Three of these attitudes followed Thorndikes (1969) theory of grading and represented separate orientations toward grading: the criterion-referenced, the norm-referenced, and the self-referenced attitudes. The fourth attitude was concerned with an overall evaluation of the usefulness and value of grading (positive vs. negative). Faculty members from three dissimilar institutions of higher education were compared with respect to these four attitudes. One institution was a large, state university; another was a small, private, four-year college; and the last was an urban community college which has a large proportion of minority students. Approximately 50% of the undergraduate instructors from each of the institutions completed the surveys. The results followed anticipated patterns. University faculty were more norm-referenced than the other two faculties. The community college faculty strongly espoused the self-referenced perspective. Unanticipatedly, the four-year college faculty were least favorable overall about grading, perhaps because they did not strongly endorse any of the orientations. Explanations for these findings were advanced.

The psychosocial impact and developmental implications of the threat of nuclear war on adolescents.

The particular significance of the threat of nuclear war in relation to the lifeview of the 270 Midwestern adolescents in our study appears manifest in the high level of awareness and concern a majority show regarding the imminence of nuclear war — its unlimitability, unsurvivability, and probability in their lifetime — and in the significant correlations demonstrated: The most highly threatened are also the more pessimistic about the future — for both the world and themselves, the more sceptical of the efficacy of socio‐political activism, and the more critical of adult stewardship. The intensity of these youngsters feelings about the threat of nuclear war, their uncertainty about the future, and the depth of their disappointment and disapproval of adults management of these matters and world affairs may be testimony to a substantial compromising of trust and faith in the parental generation.