麻瓜们飞向哈利·波特主题公园

在被派遣去查看奥兰多环球影城的全新哈利·波特主题公园前．我做足了功课。我知道我会喝点黄油啤酒．知道油画会和我交谈．知道我的头脑会受到一场高科技浪潮的冲击。然而，没有料想到的是，我差点儿被患“后波特抑郁症”的一群人活活踩死。     

The Contestant Perspective on Taking Tests: Emanations From the Statue Within

Views on testing—its purpose and uses and how its data are analyzed—are related to one's perspective on test takers. Test takers can be viewed as learners, examinees, or contestants. I briefly discuss the perspective of test takers as learners. I maintain that much of psychometrics views test takers as examinees. I discuss test takers as a contestant in some detail. Test takers who are contestants in high‐stakes settings want reliable outcomes obtained via acceptable scoring of tests administered under clear rules. In addition, it is essential to empirically verify interpretations attached to scores. At the very least, item and test scores should exhibit certain invariance properties. I note that the “do no harm” dictum borrowed from the field of medicine is particularly relevant to the perspective of test takers as contestants.     

Patterns of out-of-home placement decision-making in child welfare

Out-of-home placement decision-making in child welfare is founded on the best interest of the child in the least restrictive setting. After a child is removed from home, however, little is known about the mechanism of placement decision-making. This study aims to systematically examine the patterns of out-of-home placement decisions made in a state's child welfare system by comparing two models of placement decision-making: a multidisciplinary team decision-making model and a clinically based decision support algorithm. Based on records of 7816 placement decisions representing 6096 children over a 4-year period, hierarchical log-linear modeling characterized concordance or agreement, and discordance or disagreement when comparing the two models and accounting for age-appropriate placement options. Children aged below 16 had an overall concordance rate of 55.7%, most apparent in the least restrictive (20.4%) and the most restrictive placement (18.4%). Older youth showed greater discordant distributions (62.9%). Log-linear analysis confirmed the overall robustness of concordance (odd ratios [ORs] range: 2.9–442.0), though discordance was most evident from small deviations from the decision support algorithm, such as one-level under-placement in group home (OR = 5.3) and one-level over-placement in residential treatment center (OR = 4.8). Concordance should be further explored using child-level clinical and placement stability outcomes. Discordance might be explained by dynamic factors such as availability of placements, caregiver preferences, or policy changes and could be justified by positive child-level outcomes. Empirical placement decision-making is critical to a child's journey in child welfare and should be continuously improved to effect positive child welfare outcomes.