Your search found 2936 results.

Descriptors:
Conditioning; Deception; Generalization; Physiology; Responses; Crime; Testing

Abstract:
Previous attempts at lie detection, such as the polygraph, have relied on physiological arousal to identify deception--but these responses have not proven to be as reliable as is necessary for widespread use. Conditioning procedures have been shown to increase the discriminative physiological arousal exhibited during deception, but have targeted only instances of deception where the experimenter knows the subject is being deceptive, and the subject knows the experimenter knows (public instances of deception). To be practically useful, such a method must improve the responses subjects exhibit when "only" they know they are being deceptive (private deception). The present experiment used conditioning procedures to increase skin conductance to instances of public deception, and then tested whether these responses generalized to deceptive answers regarding a mock crime when only the subjects knew they were being deceptive. The results indicated that these responses can generalize across the public/private barrier; participants responded more strongly following instances of deception that only they were aware of. (Contains 4 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:
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:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Scoring; Generalization; Test Results

Abstract:
Kane's paper "Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores" is the most complete and clearest discussion yet available of the argument-based approach to validation. At its most basic level, validation as formulated by Kane is fundamentally a simply-stated two-step enterprise: (1) specify the claims inherent in a particular interpretation and/or use of test scores (IUA); and (2) provide an evaluation of the claims (validity argument). Kane discusses four types of inferences that provide a scaffolding for addressing these two arguments: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and decision rules. Decision rules, in particular, are closely related to consequences, which loom large in the argument-based approach to validation. The present commentary on Kane's paper attempts to simplify some of his discussions, while expanding others. The author suggests that Kane's argument-based approach to validation offers by far the best current basis for optimism about improvements in validation. (Contains 7 notes.) 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:
Phonemes; Vowels; Reading Fluency; Generalization; Elementary School Students; Grade 2; Accuracy; Word Lists; Novelty (Stimulus Dimension); Phonemic Awareness; Intervention

Abstract:
We examined the generalized effects of training children to fluently blend phonemes of words containing target vowel teams on their reading of trained and untrained words in lists and passages. Three second-grade students participated. A subset of words containing each of 3 target vowel teams ("aw," "oi," and "au") was trained in lists, and generalization was assessed to untrained words in lists, trained and untrained words in target passages, and novel words in generalization passages. A multiple probe design across vowel teams revealed generalized increases in oral reading accuracy for target words presented in both lists and passages for all 3 students on 2 vowel teams and for 1 student on all 3 vowel teams. Generalized increases in oral reading fluency in both lists and passages were found for all 3 students on the vowel team that was trained to a fluency criterion, with two students showing increases prior to training on the other two vowel teams. Implications of these results for building fluency in prerequisite phonemic awareness skills as an intervention for promoting generalized oral reading fluency are discussed. 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:
Gifted; Educational Research; Educational History; Bibliometrics; Definitions; Research Methodology; Research Problems; Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Generalizability Theory; Generalization; Validity; Experimenter Characteristics; Comparative Analysis; Ability Identification; Educational Practices; Journal Articles

Abstract:
The lack of a unified definition of giftedness leads researchers to use very different operationalizations when selecting a sample of gifted individuals for use in research. We found 104 empirical articles from 38 journals that differentiated between gifted and nongifted students which were analyzed to determine the most common methods of identifying individuals in research. Results of the analysis show a lack of consensus as to what qualifies a person to be defined as gifted for the purposes of research. This lack of consensus leads to lower generalizability of research about giftedness and to an inability for researchers in the field to compare results of studies. An agreed-upon unified definition of giftedness for the purposes of research will lead to a more homogeneous group of participants, which in turn would lead to multiple benefits, including higher external validity in research designs. (Contains 4 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

Descriptors:
Individualized Education Programs; Autism; Communication Skills; Young Children; Teaching Methods; Pervasive Developmental Disorders; Early Childhood Education; Preschool Children; Interpersonal Communication; Generalization; Maintenance; Student Behavior; Behavior Modification; Instructional Effectiveness

Abstract:
This 5-month study examined the impact of a behaviorally based naturalistic teaching strategy, milieu teaching, on the communication skills of preschool-aged children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in an early childhood special education (ECSE) classroom. A multiple baseline across participants design was used. Communication targets were selected based on each child's Individualized Education Plan. Milieu teaching strategies were implemented in two activities per day per target. Generalization and maintenance effects were also determined. Results indicated that milieu strategies are an effective means of providing communication skills instruction for young children with ASD in an ECSE classroom. (Contains 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:
Form Classes (Languages); Grammar; Language Acquisition; Classification; Linguistic Input; Cues; Generalization; Vocabulary Development; Computational Linguistics; Task Analysis

Abstract:
A fundamental component of language acquisition involves organizing words into grammatical categories. Previous literature has suggested a number of ways in which this categorization task might be accomplished. Here we ask whether the patterning of the words in a corpus of linguistic input ("distributional information") is sufficient, along with a small set of learning biases, to extract these underlying structural categories. In a series of experiments, we show that learners can acquire linguistic form-classes, generalizing from instances of the distributional contexts of individual words in the exposure set to the full range of contexts for all the words in the set. Crucially, we explore how several specific distributional variables enable learners to form a category of lexical items and generalize to novel words, yet also allow for exceptions that maintain lexical specificity. We suggest that learners are sensitive to the "contexts" of individual words, the "overlaps" among contexts across words, the non-overlap of contexts (or "systematic gaps" in information), and the size of the exposure set. We also ask how learners determine the category membership of a new word for which there is very sparse contextual information. We find that, when there are strong category cues and robust category learning of other words, adults readily generalize the distributional properties of the learned category to a new word that shares just one context with the other category members. However, as the distributional cues regarding the category become sparser and contain more consistent gaps, learners show more conservatism in generalizing distributional properties to the novel word. Taken together, these results show that learners are highly systematic in their use of the distributional properties of the input corpus, using them in a principled way to determine when to generalize and when to preserve lexical specificity. (Contains 3 tables and 5 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:
Prior Learning; Evidence; Classification; Correlation; Generalization; Observation; Cognitive Processes

Abstract:
How do explaining and prior knowledge contribute to learning? Four experiments explored the relationship between explanation and prior knowledge in category learning. The experiments independently manipulated whether participants were prompted to explain the category membership of study observations and whether category labels were informative in allowing participants to relate prior knowledge to patterns underlying category membership. The experiments revealed a superadditive interaction between explanation and informative labels, with explainers who received informative labels most likely to discover (Experiments 1 and 2) and generalize (Experiments 3 and 4) a pattern consistent with prior knowledge. However, explainers were no more likely than controls to discover multiple patterns (Experiments 1 and 2), indicating that effects of explanation are relatively targeted. We suggest that explanation recruits prior knowledge to assess whether candidate patterns are likely to have broad scope (i.e., to generalize within and beyond study observations). This interpretation is supported by the finding that effects of explanation on prior knowledge were attenuated when learners believed prior knowledge was irrelevant to generalizing category membership (Experiment 4). This research provides evidence that explanation can serve as a mechanism for deploying prior knowledge to assess the scope of observed patterns. (Contains 5 tables and 4 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:
Psychology; Emotional Response; Correlation; Semiotics; Role; Verbal Communication; Self Control; Generalization; Personality; Language Planning; Communication (Thought Transfer); Interpersonal Relationship

Abstract:
In this article, we discuss contributions from contemporary authors toward understanding a complex topic: human emotions. We comment on these authors' ideas and describe their ways of talking about emotions in relation to language, consciousness, meaning, and psychological instruments. After considering the distinct contributions of these authors, we inquire how Vygotsky's ideas deepen our understanding of human emotions and we argue the need for further exploration into the interrelations between emotions and signification. In his search to explain how social relations become internalized psychological functions, Vygotsky utilized the notions of sign and semiotic mediation to highlight the role of verbal language and meaning in making specific forms of communication and generalization possible, such as planning and self-regulation. Vygotsky claimed that human emotions develop, but he did not explicitly state how this happens. Assuming that emotions are also affected by sign production and (trans)formed by signification and language, we argue that the ways of conceiving of signification, sign, and sense production make a difference for how we explain historical-cultural development, psychicological functioning, personality formation, and the dramatic constitution of subjects. We offer two empirical excerpts to make particular aspects of signifying emotions visible. 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