Explore the vast range of titles available.

Messages announcing the possibility of community intervention and the time of its occurrence were used to examine illegal parking in spaces reserved for the disabled, during specified and nonspecified time periods. Observations were recorded during two consecutive 1-hour shifts (4:00 to 5:00 p.m. and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.). An ABACA reversal design was used at Space 1 and an ABACAB reversal design was used for Spaces 2 and 3. A sign was used to indicate that either the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. (B) or the 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. (C) shift was under observation. Although the results from Space 1 showed the same pattern as found in Spaces 2 and 3, they were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that illegal parking was probably controlled more by the content of the message than by the increased salience resulting from the addition of a secondary message sign.

Computerized psychological testing is now commonplace. However, there is little evidence that computerized tests are equivalent to their paper-and-pencil counterparts. In fact, there has often been evidence of non-equivalence for some tests. In the absence of demonstrated equivalence, the use of norms developed for the paper-and-pencil form is not justified. The present research focused on attempts to adapt one particular personality measure, Gough's Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983), for computer administration. On a commercially-available computerized form of the ACL, subjects endorsed significantly more adjectives as self-descriptive than they endorsed on the standard printed form of the ACL. This effect could be attributed to the keyboard entry of responses, which requires an active response, (i.e., \"Yes/No\" rather than the standard \"Check/blank\" form). When the paper-and-pencil form was modified to require an active response (\"Yes/No\"), adjective endorsement in the paper-and-pencil form rose to levels observed on the computer form. Attempts to modify the computer form to more closely resemble the \"Check/blank\" format were only moderately successful. An additional study utilized a multipoint form of the ACL to determine whether information provided in the computer mode differed from information provided on a paper-and-pencil form. There were no significant differences between modes. Overall, the observed differences in adjective endorsement in these studies were accounted for by differences in the required response, and not by differences in the type of information provided by subjects to the computer itself. However, the net result of the response difference was score nonequivalence that would invalidate use of existing norms. Implications for adapting similar measures for computerized administration are discussed.

College students (N = 29) who acknowledged having parked illegally in handicapped parking spaces (violators) were compared to 73 nonviolator students via their responses to a behavioral questionnaire & the Personality Research Form (PRF). Chi-square analysis indicated that violation was significantly related to gender, smoking, drinking frequency, & driving after drinking. Violators had significantly lower grade point averages than nonviolators. Differences between males & females (Ms & Fs) in nurturance & understanding scores from the PRF are proposed to account for the higher violation rates observed among Ms. High affiliation scale scores were associated with reported violation for Ms & with nonviolation for Fs, while low self-esteem was associated with violation for Fs. These results show that the misuse of handicapped parking spaces is evidence of a pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident. 1 Table, 14 References. Adapted from the source document.

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) is a method of manipulating the vestibular system through non-invasive electrical current. Depending on how GVS is applied, it produces specific sensations related to vestibular mediated central pathways. The method has been tested for decades for both medical and non-medical applications and has demonstrated promise in treating a variety of disorders including peripheral vestibular conditions, central vestibular pathology due to neurodegenerative diseases, and post-stroke motor rehabilitation. As GVS continues to grow in popularity and applications, the field lacks clarity on appropriate stimulation parameters, despite their importance for safe and efficacious neuromodulation. This study aims to review the parameters used in various treatment applications while also providing a concise overview of the mechanisms underlying GVS thereby offering essential context and justification for the chosen parameters. We performed a literature search on the PubMed and Embase databases for clinical trials including the term “galvanic vestibular stimulation.” After removing duplicates, secondary analyses, and studies that did not use GVS for therapeutic purposes, we were left with 53 independent studies. We extracted the stimulation parameters used in each study and report them here. The results of this review suggest that while some stimulation parameters are relatively standardized for specific treatment indications, others lack universally accepted guidelines as the field of GVS continues to evolve. Based on our findings, we recommend that future GVS research include at least one sham condition, the use of individualized current intensity, and the comparison of multiple GVS parameters within the same trial.