Examining the developmental trajectories of adolescent sexual offenders

The aim of the current study was to assess the validity of the sex-plus versus sex-only categorization method for distinguishing between different types of adolescent sex offenders (ASOs; Butler & Seto, 2002). It is hypothesized that this categorization method has utility when attempting to distinguish between generalist and specialist ASOs (Seto & Pullman, 2014). Additionally, further classification of ASOs was attempted using a well known juvenile delinquency classification scheme, early-onset versus late-onset offenders (Moffitt, 1993). The current study was an archival analysis of clinical files from a sample of 158 male ASOs seen for clinical assessment at a Metropolitan Family Court Clinic. Results indicate that sex-plus offenders are more antisocial, exhibit more psychiatric issues, and have greater deficits in general social skills compared to sex-only offenders. Conversely, sex-only offenders were found to have more atypical sexual interests, and were more likely to have greater deficits in romantic relationships compared to sex-plus offenders. Due to a power related limitation, little support was found for the use of the early-onset versus late-onset classification scheme with ASOs. Overall, these results provide further support to the validity of a sex-only versus sex-plus distinction. Given these results mirror those found in the generalist/specialist literature regarding the etiology of ASOs, sex-only and sex-plus offenders may indeed have different etiological pathways: sex-plus offenders are more driven by general antisociality factors, as the generalist perspective suggests, and sex-only offenders are more driven by special factors, as the specialist explanations suggest.     

Attitudinal Survey Characteristics Impacting Participant Responses

Abstract

Research suggests that certain characteristics of survey items may impact participants’ responses. In this study we investigated the impact of several of these characteristics: vague wording, question-versus-statement phrasing, and full-versus-partial labeling of response options. We manipulated survey items per these characteristics and randomly administered the manipulated and nonmanipulated items to two groups of respondents. We examined differences in responses via multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and found differences in factor means, slopes (indicating differing discrimination), and/or intercepts (indicating differing response extremity) for all conditions. Implications for survey construction are discussed.     

Good practices for student learning: Mixed‐method evidence from the Wabash National Study

Kathleen M. Goodman, Marcia Baxter Magolda, Tricia A. Seifert, and Patricia M. King review both quantitative and qualitative data to understand students' college experiences and provide powerful information to guide educators.     

Educating students with FASD: linking policy,research and practice

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD ) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental disability with significant implications for learning and behaviour. International research suggests that the prevalence of FASD in school‐aged children is 2.3–6.3%. In this paper, we address the questions: (1) what is FASD ; (2) what is the prevalence of FASD in schools; (3) what is the impact of FASD ; and (4) why develop special FASD education strategies and programmes? We summarise the 18‐year history of W innipeg S chool D ivision's development of its FASD P rogramme of services, describe the specialised FASD classrooms and then present the results from a consensus‐generating workshop comprised of 36 FASD education professionals, with over 209 years of collective FASD education programme experience, who were asked to identify and reach consensus on best strategies and lessons learned in FASD education programmes. We then suggest that effectively educating children with FASD is critical to get right if positive educational outcomes are to be realised.     

Moral Education in Early Childhood: The Limits of Constructivism

Broadly speaking there are two polar views on moral education - traditionalism and progressivism. Traditionalists tend to believe that moral values are eternal and universal. They prioritize such “hard” virtues as discipline, courage, restraint, and obedience, and believe in directive behavioral instruction with meaningful consequences for rule-following and rule-breaking. Progressives, the dominant voice in early childhood education, believe that moral values are variable, dependent on social context. They prioritize such “soft” virtues as unselfishness, caring, generosity, and tolerance, and believe virtues are acquired in a “sociomoral environment” of nurturing adults who stress cooperative interchanges and minimal authority. While most programs, despite their “tilt”, acknowledge the need for a balance, they do not specify criteria for making the pedagogical decisions. Without such explicit criteria, a “strong” version of constructivism may demand more of children than they can deliver given their developmental limitations. Two criteria are suggested for determining when traditional methods may usefully supplement constructivist ones: First, one must decide if the matter at stake is a bottom-line non-negotiable value such that a child's dissension is unacceptable. Second, one must determine if the preschooler, given her cognitive egocentricity, moral realism, and “romancing of reality” can make a rational (decentered) choice. There follows a more detailed discussion of blended approaches (traditional and constructivist) within the overall goal of helping children build a moral identity.