The construct validity of the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder symptoms : A multitrait-multisource approach based on father and mother ratings
Description:
There has been considerable debate over the construct validity of the Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) symptoms in past research due to measurement error (e.g., source effects) associated with parent and teacher ratings of childhood behaviour. Recent multitrait-multisource (MT-MS) studies have attempted to account for measurement error by using multiple sources involving parents and teachers. These studies have identified low trait variance in the AD/HD and ODD dimensions, thereby raising questions about the validity of the AD/HD - inattention (IN), AD/HD - hyperactivity/impulsivity (H/I), and ODD constructs. However, as these studies examine ratings from different settings (i.e., home and school) it can be argued that the low trait variance in the AD/HD constructs may reflect cross-situational differences. The current research used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures to examine the internal and external validity of AD/HD and ODD symptoms based on ratings (i.e., mother and father) from individuals in the same setting...
Description:
There has been considerable debate over the construct validity of the Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) symptoms in past research due to measurement error (e.g., source effects) associated with parent and teacher ratings of childhood behaviour. Recent multitrait-multisource (MT-MS) studies have attempted to account for measurement error by using multiple sources involving parents and teachers. These studies have identified low trait variance in the AD/HD and ODD dimensions, thereby raising questions about the validity of the AD/HD - inattention (IN), AD/HD - hyperactivity/impulsivity (H/I), and ODD constructs. However, as these studies examine ratings from different settings (i.e., home and school) it can be argued that the low trait variance in the AD/HD constructs may reflect cross-situational differences. The current research used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures to examine the internal and external validity of AD/HD and ODD symptoms based on ratings (i.e., mother and father) from individuals in the same setting...
Description:
The study examined whether the magnitude of same-sex-favouring implicit gender bias depends on individual differences in self-esteem and gender identity as theorized by Greenwald et al. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) was used to measure implicit self-esteem, gender identity, and gender attitudes. Explicit self-esteem and gender identity were measured with questionnaires. The IAT revealed a strong automatic preference for female words in 34 female undergraduates but, surprisingly, no significant gender bias in 32 males. Individual levels of this gender bias were predicted in both sexes by IAT-derived implicit measures of self-esteem and gender identity, as well as by their interaction. Neither declared gender identity nor explicit self-esteem added to the prediction. The results are discussed in terms of balanced identity design and the potential influence of method effects on the findings. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
Description:
This paper investigates the possible mismatch between current initiatives to attract and retain general practitioners (GPs) to rural areas, and Australian research evidence about the most significant factors affecting recruitment and retention. The results reported here are part of a broader project that aims to use evidence-based research to enhance rural GP workforce planning and management. This phase of the project analysed research reports evaluating the outcome of programs and services aimed at improving rural recruitment and retention. The search strategies for this review included: key word searches of electronic database publications over the last 15 years; hand searching of relevant journals; trawling websites of relevant organisations; and direct contact with relevant organisations to request copies of “grey” literature such as unpublished reports. A total of 22 Australian studies were identified that met these criteria. (It is acknowledged that many other initiatives have been tried, but evaluation reports for these do not exist or were not obtainable. Similarly, many other studies have examined recruitment or retention without evaluating workforce initiatives.) The 22 studies evaluated nine major recruitment and retention initiatives including: medical course admission criteria (2 studies); rural placements (7); student scholarships (1); financial incentives (2); continuing medical education (5); universitylinked rural practices (1); case management (1); and overseas-trained doctors (2); an community capacity-building (1). Demonstrating “causation” requires strong internal and external validity. Overall, however, there is not yet strong empirical evidence for the efficacy of the any of these initiatives. The methodological problems consistently identified in our analysis were: no use of comparison or control groups; an overreliance on surveys of GPs’ attitudes or intentions rather than actual behaviours; inconsistent definitions of key variables including “rural” and “retention”; inadequate sample sizes or unrepresentative samples and selection biases; inconsistent use of definitions of key variables including “rural” and “retention”; cross-sectional and retrospective designs; insufficient information on statistical analyses; and qualitative studies that did not formally and systematically apply techniques for strengthening credibility and transferability. Moreover, many of these initiatives do not appear to be closely aligned with the factors usually thought to influence recruitment or retention. The learnings from this project support the strategic and accessible use of evidencebased health care for rural workforce issues. Government departments and agencies should invest in rigorous evaluations that are then made publicly available. Policy and program development can benefit by drawing upon sound research knowledge. Rural communities can also become more informed and discerning consumers of this information.
Description:
This paper investigates the possible mismatch between current initiatives to attract and retain general practitioners (GPs) to rural areas, and Australian research evidence about the most significant factors affecting recruitment and retention. The results reported here are part of a broader project that aims to use evidence-based research to enhance rural GP workforce planning and management. This phase of the project analysed research reports evaluating the outcome of programs and services aimed at improving rural recruitment and retention. The search strategies for this review included: key word searches of electronic database publications over the last 15 years; hand searching of relevant journals; trawling websites of relevant organisations; and direct contact with relevant organisations to request copies of “grey” literature such as unpublished reports. A total of 22 Australian studies were identified that met these criteria. (It is acknowledged that many other initiatives have been tried, but evaluation reports for these do not exist or were not obtainable. Similarly, many other studies have examined recruitment or retention without evaluating workforce initiatives.) The 22 studies evaluated nine major recruitment and retention initiatives including: medical course admission criteria (2 studies); rural placements (7); student scholarships (1); financial incentives (2); continuing medical education (5); universitylinked rural practices (1); case management (1); and overseas-trained doctors (2); an community capacity-building (1). Demonstrating “causation” requires strong internal and external validity. Overall, however, there is not yet strong empirical evidence for the efficacy of the any of these initiatives. The methodological problems consistently identified in our analysis were: no use of comparison or control groups; an overreliance on surveys of GPs’ attitudes or intentions rather than actual behaviours; inconsistent definitions of key variables including “rural” and “retention”; inadequate sample sizes or unrepresentative samples and selection biases; inconsistent use of definitions of key variables including “rural” and “retention”; cross-sectional and retrospective designs; insufficient information on statistical analyses; and qualitative studies that did not formally and systematically apply techniques for strengthening credibility and transferability. Moreover, many of these initiatives do not appear to be closely aligned with the factors usually thought to influence recruitment or retention. The learnings from this project support the strategic and accessible use of evidencebased health care for rural workforce issues. Government departments and agencies should invest in rigorous evaluations that are then made publicly available. Policy and program development can benefit by drawing upon sound research knowledge. Rural communities can also become more informed and discerning consumers of this information.