Explore the vast range of titles available.

Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest-posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest-posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.

Advances in research on language processing have originally come from group-level comparisons, but there is now a growing interest in individual differences. To investigate individual differences, tasks that have shown robust group-level differences are often used with the implicit assumption that they will also be reliable when used as an individual differences measure. Here, we examined whether one of the primary tasks used in psycholinguistic research on language processing, the self-paced reading task, can reliably measure individual differences in relative clause processing. We replicated the well-established effects of relative clauses at the group level, with object relative clauses being more difficult to process than subject relative clauses. However, when using difference scores, the reliability of the size of the relative clause effect was close to zero because the self-paced reading times for the different relative clause types were highly correlated within individuals. Nonetheless, we found that the self-paced reading task can be used to reliably capture individual differences in overall reading speed as well as key sentence regions when the two types of relative clause sentences are considered separately. Our results indicate that both the reliability and validity of different sentence regions need to be assessed to determine whether and when self-paced reading can be used to examine individual differences in language processing.

Multiple informants commonly disagree when reporting child and family behavior. In many studies of informant discrepancies, researchers take the difference between two informants' reports and seek to examine the link between this difference score and external constructs (e.g., child maladjustment). In this paper, we review two reasons why difference scores cannot serve as unambiguous predictors of outcomes. Further, we use polynomial regression analyses to both test the validity of difference scores and provide a more direct test of the hypothesis that discrepancies in parent and child reports predict child psychopathology. Data from 218 parent-adolescent dyads (M adolescent age=11.5 years, 51 % female; 49 % European American, 47 % African American) were used to predict adolescent-reported antisocial behavior and depression from parent and adolescent reports of parent-adolescent conflict, parental knowledge, parental acceptance, adolescent rule-breaking behavior, and adolescent pubertal development. Results demonstrate that analyses using difference scores do not provide valid tests of the utility of informant discrepancies in predicting adolescent psychosocial maladjustment. However, interaction terms in polynomial regression analyses provide evidence that informant discrepancies predict child psychopathology. Parent-adolescent informant discrepancies predict adolescent psychopathology but researchers should avoid using difference scores to measure informant discrepancies. Polynomial regression analyses provide more comprehensive and accurate tests of whether informant discrepancies predict child and adolescent psychopathology.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Researchers and clinicians using Jacobson and Truax's index to assess the reliability of change in patients, or its counterpart by Chelune et al., which takes practice effects into account, are confused by the different ways of calculating the standard error encountered in the literature (see the discussion started in this journal by Hinton-Bayre). This article compares the characteristics of (1) the standard error used by Jacobson and Truax, (2) the standard error of difference scores used by Temkin et al. and (3) an adaptation of Jacobson and Truax's approach that accounts for difference between initial and final variance. It is theoretically demonstrated that the last variant is preferable, which is corroborated by real data. (JINS, 2004, 10, 888–893.)

It is widely held that upright faces are processed more holistically than inverted faces and that this difference is reflected in the face inversion effect. It is not clear, however, how the inversion effect can best be measured, whether it is task specific, or even whether it specifically correlates with processing of upright faces. We examined these questions in a large sample ( N = 420) who provided data on processing of upright and inverted stimuli in two different tasks with faces and one with objects. We find that the inversion effects are task dependent, and that they do not correlate better among face processing tasks than they do across face and object processing tasks. These findings were obtained regardless of whether inversion effects were measured by means of difference scores or regression. In comparison, only inversion effects based on regression predicted performance with upright faces in tasks other than those the inversion effects were derived from. Critically, however, inversion effects based on regression also predicted performance with inverted faces to a similar degree as they predicted performance with upright faces. Consequently, and contrary to what is commonly assumed, inversion effects do not seem to capture effects specific to holistic processing of upright faces. While the present findings do not bring us closer to an understanding of which changes in cognitive processing are induced by inversion, they do suggest that inversion effects do not reflect a unitary construct; an implicit assumption that seems to characterize much of the research regarding face processing.

Background:Both postoperative epidural analgesia and intravenous (IV) infusion of local anesthetic have been shown to shorten ileus duration and hospital stay after colon surgery when compared with the use of systemic narcotics alone. However, they have not been compared directly with each other.Methods:Prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted comparing the 2 treatments in open colon surgery patients. Before induction of general anesthesia, patients were randomized either to epidural analgesia (bupivacaine 0.125% and hydromorphone 6 μg/mL were started at 10 mL/hr within 1 hr of the end of surgery) or IV lidocaine (1 mg/min in patients <70 kg, 2 mg/min in patients ≥70 kg). Markers of return of bowel function, length of stay, postoperative pain scores, systemic analgesic requirements, and adverse events were recorded and compared between the 2 groups in an intent-to-treat analysis.Results:Study enrollment took place from April 2005 to July 2006. Twenty-two patients were randomized to IV lidocaine therapy and 20 patients to epidural therapy. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in time to return of bowel function or hospital length of stay. The median pain score difference was not statistically significant. No statistically significant differences were found in pain scores for any specific postoperative day or in analgesic consumption.Conclusions:No differences were observed between groups in terms of return of bowel function, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative pain control, suggesting that IV infusion of local anesthetic may be an effective alternative to epidural therapy in patients in whom epidural anesthesia is contraindicated or not desired.

Individual-level information systems adoption research has recently seen the introduction of expectation—disconfirmation theory (EDT) to explain how and why user reactions change over time. This prior research has produced valuable insights into the phenomenon of technology adoption beyond traditional models, such as the technology acceptance model. First, we identify gaps in EDT research that present potential opportunities for advances—specifically, we discuss methodological and analytical limitations in EDT research in information systems and present polynomial modeling and response surface methodology as solutions. Second, we draw from research on cognitive dissonance, realistic job preview, and prospect theory to present a polynomial model of expectation—disconfirmation in information systems. Finally, we test our model using data gathered over a period of 6 months among 1,143 employees being introduced to a new technology. The results confirmed our hypotheses that disconfirmation in general was bad, as evidenced by low behavioral intention to continue using a system for both positive and negative disconfirmation, thus supporting the need for a polynomial model to understand expectation disconfirmation in information systems.

Holistic processing, which includes the integration of facial features and analysis of their relations to one another, is a hallmark of what makes faces ‘special’. Various experimental paradigms purport to measure holistic processing but these have often produced inconsistent results. This has led researchers to question the nature and structure of the mechanism(s) underlying holistic processing. Using an individual differences approach, researchers have examined relations between various measures of holistic processing in an attempt to resolve these questions. In keeping with this, we examined relationships between four commonly used measures of holistic face processing in a large group of participants ( N = 223): (1) The Face Inversion Effect, (2) the Part Whole Effect (PWE), (3) the Composite Face Effect, and (4) the Configural Featural Detection Task (CFDT). Several novel methodological and analytical elements were introduced, including the use of factor analysis and the inclusion of control conditions to confirm the face specificity of all of the effects measured. The four indexes of holistic processing derived from each measure loaded onto two factors, one encompassing the PWE and the CFDT, and one encompassing the CE. The 16 conditions tested across the four tasks loaded onto four factors, each factor corresponding to a different measure. These results, together with those of other studies, suggest that holistic processing is a multifaceted construct and that different measures tap into distinct but partially overlapping elements of it.

The longitudinal contributions of emotion regulation and emotion lability-negativity to internalizing symptomatology were examined in a low-income sample (171 maltreated and 151 nonmaltreated children, from age 7 to 10 years). Latent difference score models indicated that for both maltreated and nonmaltreated children, emotion regulation was a mediator between emotion lability-negativity and internalizing symptomatology, whereas emotion lability-negativity was not a mediator between emotion regulation and internalizing symptomatology. Early maltreatment was associated with high emotion lability-negativity (age 7) that contributed to poor emotion regulation (age 8), which in turn was predictive of increases in internalizing symptomatology (from age 8 to 9). The results imply important roles of emotion regulation in the development of internalizing symptomatology, especially for children with high emotion lability-negativity.

Evidence-accumulation models are a useful tool for investigating the cognitive processes that give rise to behavioural data patterns in reaction times (RTs) and error rates. In their simplest form, evidence-accumulation models include three parameters: The average rate of evidence accumulation over time (drift rate) and the amount of evidence that needs to be accumulated before a response becomes selected (boundary) both characterise the response-selection process; a third parameter summarises all processes before and after the response-selection process (non-decision time). Researchers often compute experimental effects as simple difference scores between two within-subject conditions and such difference scores can also be computed on model parameters. In the present paper, we report spurious correlations between such model parameter difference scores, both in empirical data and in computer simulations. The most pronounced spurious effect is a negative correlation between boundary difference and non-decision difference, which amounts to r = – .70 or larger. In the simulations, we only observed this spurious negative correlation when either (a) there was no true difference in model parameters between simulated experimental conditions, or (b) only drift rate was manipulated between simulated experimental conditions; when a true difference existed in boundary separation, non-decision time, or all three main parameters, the correlation disappeared. We suggest that care should be taken when using evidence-accumulation model difference scores for correlational approaches because the parameter difference scores can correlate in the absence of any true inter-individual differences at the population level.