Your search found 4477 results.

Descriptors:
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Classification; Mental Disorders; Psychotherapy; Mental Health Programs; Models; Program Effectiveness; Literature Reviews; Trauma; Repetition; Developmental Psychology; Attachment Behavior; Victims; Barriers; Intimacy; Outcomes of Treatment; Evidence

Abstract:
The symptoms, assessment, and treatments of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) have been empirically investigated to the extent that there is a breadth of valid and reliable instruments investigating this psychopathological syndrome. There, too, exists a substantial evidence base for various treatment models demonstrating effectiveness in treating PTSD. There are, however, no instruments designed to investigate the phenomena associated with Complex PTSD, and it has yet to find its place in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders." There are also few outcome studies demonstrating effectiveness of various treatment approaches for Complex PTSD. Consequently, the current paper is an exhaustive literature review of outcome studies from various theoretical treatment orientations that have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of Complex PTSD. The paper closes with a review of various psychotherapy integration approaches and how those may be applied to the current research reviewed. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (637K)

Descriptors:
Educational Research; Evidence; Persuasive Discourse; Research Methodology

Abstract:
This paper continues a discussion started in a special issue about the acceptability of prescriptive statements in educational research articles. In light of some ambiguities concerning what counts as a prescriptive statement, and the special issue's focus on causal relations as a requirement for the justification of prescriptive statements, a more detailed characterization of prescriptive statements and the structure of a complete argumentation for them is offered. This reveals two major obstacles to valid justifications of prescriptive statements that have received little attention before: the problem of normativity and the problem of generality. The proposed solution to the problem of normativity--that is, the impossibility to support prescriptive statements by empirical research alone--is to take into account that arguments for prescriptive statements target an audience that may agree on the values of many educational goals. The proposed solution to the problem of generality--that is, the necessity of well-established general causal regularities for the justification of prescriptive statements--requires appropriate designs for testing the generality of claims. Methodological suggestions include nested designs with quasi-representative samples of treatments as well as standard procedures for determining the cost and side effects on an agreed-upon set of relevant outcome dimensions for both current practice and any new intervention. If such steps are undertaken, prescriptive statements are no less justified in discussion sections than general descriptive claims as long as the final decision about them is suspended if the available normative and empirical arguments are not yet conclusive. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Ethics; Validity; Theories; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Beliefs

Abstract:
According to Kane (this issue), "the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports" the claims being made. Because truth and evidence are distinct, this means that the validity of a test score interpretation could be high even though the interpretation is false. As an illustration, we discuss the case of phlogiston measurement as it existed in the 18th century. At face value, Kane's theory would seem to imply that interpretations of phlogiston measurement were valid in the 18th century (because the evidence for them was strong), even though amounts of phlogiston do not exist and hence cannot be measured. We suggest that this neglects an important aspect of validity and suggest various ways in which Kane's theory could meet this challenge. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Generalization; Test Results; Decision Making; Beliefs; Ethics; Evidence

Abstract:
This response to the comments contains three main sections, each addressing a subset of the comments. In the first section, I will respond to the comments by Brennan, Haertel, and Moss. All of these comments suggest ways in which my presentation could be extended or improved; I generally agree with their suggestions, so my response to their comments is brief. In the second section, I will respond to suggestions by Newton and Sireci that my framework be simplified by employing only one kind of argument, a validity argument, and dropping the interpretation/use argument (IUA); I am sympathetic to their desire for greater simplicity, but I see considerable value in keeping the IUA as a framework for the validation effort and will argue for keeping both the IUA and the validity argument. In the third section, I will respond to Borsboom and Markus, who raise a fundamental objection to my approach to validation, suggesting that I give too much attention to justification and too little to truth as a criterion for validity; I don't accept their proposed conception of validity, and I will indicate why. (Contains 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Test Interpretation; Validity; Scores; Test Use; Test Results; Construct Validity; Content Validity; Generalization; Performance Tests; Item Response Theory; Sampling; Inferences; Reliability; Evidence; Theories

Abstract:
To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument-based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more-ambitious claims require more support than less-ambitious claims. Fourth, more-ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less-ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use. (Contains 1 figure and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Anxiety Disorders; Models; Metacognition; Cognitive Restructuring; Behavior Modification; Therapy; Outcomes of Treatment; Research Needs

Abstract:
Cognitive-behavioural models and interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have always included some metacognitive elements but until recently these have been predominantly construed of as cognitive as opposed to metacognitive processes. Increasingly, psychological models of OCD are now recognising the importance of metacognitive constructs in the maintenance and treatment of the disorder. Metacognitive models emphasise the importance of thinking processes, and thus represent a step away from traditional cognitive approaches which focused on the content of thoughts. This article reviews the current literature on metacognition in psychological models of OCD with an emphasis on: the role of metacognition in theoretical models of OCD and evidence to support this role; measures of metacognition in OCD; and, metacognitive treatment approaches for OCD and the evidence to support these approaches. The evidence indicates that metacognition has a key role in the aetiology of OCD. Treatment outcome research has indicated promising results, with several trials indicating clinically and statistically significant improvements using metacognitive-based approaches. However, there is a need for larger, controlled trials with longer follow-up periods to improve upon the methodological limitations of studies conducted to date. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Educational Opportunities; Evidence; Adolescents; Social Studies; Academic Standards; History; Secondary School Teachers; Secondary School Students; Student Needs; Educational Needs; Teacher Expectations of Students; Teacher Student Relationship; History Instruction; Teaching Methods; Critical Thinking; Thinking Skills; Special Education Teachers

Abstract:
The Common Core State Standards for literacy in history and social studies present opportunities and challenges for teachers of and adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). In addition to reading challenges, students must engage in higher order thinking and reasoning. To provide opportunities for students to successfully respond to such challenges, teachers must have an understanding of the expectations in the Standards, and of the learning needs of students with LD. Teachers can assure success for adolescents with LD by selecting proven instructional procedures and engaging in collaboration to provide students with the supports they need. Examples of one evidence-based practice, Content Enhancement, are provided to illustrate instructional protocols for teachers of diverse classes that include adolescents with LD. (Contains 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Governance; Foreign Countries; Professional Services; Evidence; Power Structure; Educational History; Higher Education; Access to Education

Abstract:
A governance model is developed in which university governance is shared between the academic and governing bodies and is coordinated by the university executive. Viewing the university as a professional service organisation, and noting the importance of developing a flexible culture within a shifting, marketised external environment, it is argued that a degree of shared governance is necessary for the success of the modern university. Although the discussion is couched largely within the context and evolution of UK university governance over the past sixty years, it also draws on the US evidence and experience and the conclusions drawn are general. (Contains 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Mathematics Skills; Mathematics Instruction; Elementary Secondary Education; Academic Standards; Mathematics Tests; Outcomes of Education; Mathematics Teachers; Evidence; Intervention; Basic Skills; Elementary School Teachers; Secondary School Teachers; Elementary School Students; Secondary School Students

Abstract:
The Common Core State Standards provide teachers with a framework of necessary mathematics skills across grades K-12, which vary considerably from previous mathematics standards. In this article, we discuss concerns about the implications of the Common Core for students with mathematics difficulties (MD), given that students with MD, by definition, struggle with mathematical skills. We suggest that instruction centered on the Common Core will be challenging and may lead to problematic outcomes for this population. We propose that working on foundational skills related to the Common Core standards is a necessary component of mathematics instruction for students with MD, and we provide teachers with a framework for working on foundational skills concurrent with the Common Core standards. We caution, however, that implementation of the Common Core is in its infancy, and the implications of the Common Core for students with MD need to be monitored carefully. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Learning Disabilities; State Standards; Evidence; Writing (Composition); Special Education Teachers; Academic Standards; Writing Instruction; Writing Tests; Educational Environment; Secondary School Students; Secondary School Teachers; Writing Teachers

Abstract:
This article examines the Common Core State Standards as they apply to writing and students with learning disabilities (LD). We first consider why the implementation of these standards is advantageous to writing instruction for students with LD as well as the challenges in implementing them. Next, we make the following four recommendations in terms of their implementation: (1) increase general and special education teachers' knowledge about writing development; (2) create a writing environment in which students with LD can thrive; (3) employ evidence-based writing practices in general education classes (where most students with LD are taught); and (4) use evidence-based writing practices effective with students with LD. We conclude by considering research that still needs to be undertaken to help educators maximize the probability that students with and without LD meet the writing benchmarks proposed in these Standards. (Contains 3 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website