Empirically Supporting the Increasing Severity of College Counseling Center Client Problems: Why Is It So Challenging?

Since the late 1980s, college counselors have reported seeing increasing numbers of students who present with severe forms of emotional and psychological disturbance. However, little direct evidence has yet to demonstrate any trend in the level of severity of presenting problems. In this article, the authors explore methodological challenges for researchers who attempt to examine the question of increasing severity of client problems. Implications for college counseling centers are discussed.     

Help‐Seeking and Non‐Help‐Seeking Students' Perceptions of Own and Peers' Mental Health Functioning

Help‐seeking (HS) students and non‐help‐seeking (NHS) students were compared on their perceptions of (a) their own level of mental health functioning and (b) the average level of mental health functioning of their (NHS or HS) peers. Results showed that NHS students' perceptions of HS students' self‐ratings were similar to HS students' self‐ratings of functioning but that HS students underestimated the level of functioning of their NHS peers. Implications of the findings for campus outreach and future research are discussed.     

The relationship between dyslexia and Meares‐Irlen Syndrome

Meares‐Irlen Syndrome (MIS) is characterised by symptoms of visual stress and visual perceptual distortions that are alleviated by using individually prescribed coloured filters. Coloured overlays (sheets of transparent plastic that are placed upon the page) are used to screen for the condition. MIS is diagnosed on the basis of either the sustained voluntary use of an overlay or an immediate improvement (typically of more than 5%) on the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test (WRRT). Various studies are reviewed suggesting a prevalence of 20–34% using these criteria. Stricter criteria give a lower prevalence: for example, 5% of the population read more than 25% faster with an overlay. It has been alleged that MIS is more common in dyslexia, but this has not been systematically investigated. We compared a group of 32 dyslexic with 32 control children aged 7–12 years, matched for age, gender and socio‐economic background. Participants were tested with Intuitive Overlays, and those demonstrating a preference had their rate of reading tested using the WRRT with and without their preferred overlay. Both groups read faster with the overlay, and more so in the dyslexic group. ANOVA revealed no significant effect of group, but a significant improvement in WRRT with overlay (p=0.009) and a significant interaction between group and overlay (p=0.031). We found a similar prevalence of MIS in the general population to that in previous studies and a prevalence in the dyslexic group that was a little higher (odds ratio for >5% criterion: 2.6, 95% confidence limit 0.9–7.3). The difference in prevalence in the two groups did not reach statistical significance. We conclude that MIS is prevalent in the general population and possibly a little more common in dyslexia. Children with dyslexia seem to benefit more from coloured overlays than non‐dyslexic children. MIS and dyslexia are separate entities and are detected and treated in different ways. If a child has both problems then they are likely to be markedly disadvantaged and they should receive prompt treatments appropriate to the two conditions. It is recommended that education professionals as well as eye‐care professionals are alert to the symptoms of MIS and that children are screened for this condition, as well as for other visual anomalies.     

Journal Editorial Policies Regarding Statistical Significance Tests: Heat Is to Fire as p Is to Importance

The present paper responds to defenses of statistical significance testing offered by Levin and Robinson. First, some inaccurate perceptions of contemporary criticisms of statistical tests are noted. Second, areas of disagreement are explored. For example, it is noted that all nine empirical studies of reporting practices since 1994 show that encouraging (per the 1994 APA style manual) authors to report effect sizes has not worked; two reasons for this failure are explored. Finally, two important areas of agreement regarding needed improvements in contemporary practices are noted.