The impact of case characteristics on child abuse reporting decisions.

Drawing distinctions on the basis of at least some case characteristics in making reporting decisions makes considerable sense. Using data from a national survey of mandated reporters that included vignettes in which case and personal characteristics were systematically varied, this paper examines the impact of selected characteristics while controlling for others. The data reveal that respondents noticed and responded to case characteristics. Abuse-relevant judgments and reporting intentions varied, often substantially, as a function of case characteristics. Three case characteristics--previous abuse, severity of abuse, and recantation--were powerful predictors of vignette outcomes. A history of previous abuse led to judgments of greater seriousness, a more salutary impact of a report, and greater likelihood of reporting. More severe abuse was more likely to be labelled as abuse, and was more likely to be reported. When the alleged victim retracted her accusation upon questioning by an authority figure, respondents were significantly less likely to intend a report. Child age, perpetrator intent and family socioeconomic status also influenced abuse-relevant judgments and reporting intentions. Respondents were more likely to intend a report when younger children, lazy or angry perpetrators and children from poorer families were portrayed.     

Assessing the Utility of Item Response Models: Computerized Adaptive Testing

How has Item Response Theory helped solve problems in the development and use of computer-adaptive tests? Do we need to balance item content with computer-adaptive tests? Could we use IRT to evaluate unusual responses to computer-delivered tests?     

The Development of Measures of Individual Differences in Self-Regulatory Control and Their Relationship to Academic Performance

Two studies are reported describing the development and validation of the Strategic Flexibility Questionnaire (SFQ): a self-report instrument aimed at eliciting students’ beliefs about the need for, and conditional nature of, self-regulatory control over learning. In Study 1, 281 first-year university education students completed a 40-item pilot questionnaire. Factor analysis of responses revealed a 21-item instrument indicating three types of control beliefs: adaptive executive control, inflexible executive control, and irresolute executive control. In Study 2, the predictive validity of these conceptions was tested against the academic performance of 105 third-year university education students. Results indicated that students reporting adaptive executive control beliefs were more successful academically, while those students reporting inflexible or irresolute control beliefs were significantly less successful academically.