acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

Many large-scale national and international testing programs use the Rasch model to govern the construction of measurement scales that can be used to monitor standards of performance and monitor performance over time. A significant issue that arises in such programs is that once a decision has been made to use the model, it is not possible to reverse the decision if the data do not fit the model. There are two levels of question that result from such a situation. One of them involves the issue of misfit to the model. That is, how robust is the model to violations of fit of the data to the model? A second question emerges from the premise that the issue of fit to the model is a relative matter. That is, ultimately, it becomes the decision of users as to whether data fit the model well enough to suit the purpose of the users. Once this decision has been made, such as in the case of large-scale testing programs like the ones refocused to above, then the question reverts to one in which the focus is on the applications of the Rasch model. More specifically, in the case of this study, the intention is to examine the consequences of variability of fit to the Rasch model on the measures of student performance obtained from two different equating procedures. Two related simulation studies have been conducted to compare the results obtained from using two different equating procedures (namely separate and concurrent equating) with the Rasch Simple Logistic model, as data-model fit gets progressively worse. The results indicate that when data-model fit ranges from good fit to average fit (MNSQ ??? 1.60), there is little or no difference between the results obtained from the different equating procedures. However, when data-model fit ranges from relatively poor fit to poor fit (MNSQ &gt 1.60), the results from using different equating procedures prove less comparable. When the results of these two simulation studies are translated to a situation in Australia, for example, where different states use different equating procedures to generate a single comparable score and then these scores are used to compare performances amongst students and to predetermined standards or benchmarks, it raises significant equity issues. In essence, it means that in the latter situation, some students are deemed to be either above or below the standards purely as a consequence of the equating procedure selected. For example, students could be deemed to be above a benchmark if separate equating was used to produce the scale; yet these same students could be deemed to fall below the benchmark if concurrent equating is used. The actual consequences of this decision will vary from situation to situation. For example, if the same equating procedure was used each year to equate the data to form a single scale, then it could be argued that it does not matter if the results vary from occasion to occasion because it is consistent for the cohort of students from year to year. However, if other states or countries, for example, use a different equating procedure and the results are compared, then there is an equity problem. The extent of the problem is dependent upon the robustness of the model to varying degrees of misfit.

<p> Two studies tested hypotheses regarding the idea that humor promotes cognitive flexibility. Two components of humor are argued to promote cognitive flexibility. First, the positive emotion associated with humor may enhance cognitive flexibility. Second, the processing of humor may exercise complex cognitive processing, thus making similar processing more efficient on subsequent tasks. Participants in Experiment 1 read humorous sentences or one of two types of non-humorous sentences. Participants in Experiment 2 viewed captioned images that varied in the presence of positivity and incongruity. Results of both studies do not support the idea that humor promotes cognitive flexibility, nor do they show evidence that humor promotes cognitive flexibility because of the positive emotion or incongruity associated with it. Explanations for the failure to find support for hypotheses focus on the stimuli used in non-humor conditions and the stimuli and method of measuring cognitive flexibility. Alternative methods of testing the hypotheses are also offered, such as investigating sense of humor as a personality trait, using different types of humor and a different method of measuring cognitive flexibility. This project hoped to provide elementary evidence for the notion that humor is beneficial for health, but did not do so. It is hoped that future research can elucidate the relationship between humor and health.</p>

Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have studied functional structure of human mind. So called 'faculty psychology' is the study of innate structure of human cognition. However, it is Gall's theory of faculties that started the study of domain specific and autonomous units of human mind. This dissertation discusses modularity of mind, i.e., the idea that mind consists of such domain specific and autonomous units, i.e., cognitive modules. In the first of the dissertation, I discuss faculty psychology as a historical precursor of modularity and recent theories of modularity that are developed to capture different aspects of a cognitive system. In the second part of the dissertation, I discuss Fodorian modularity, a comprehensive and well developed theory of modularity. Two problems of Fodorian modularity are discussed. First, Fodorian modularity is problematic because it has a problematic element, i.e., neural specificity. Fodor explains informational encapsulation of a cognitive system in terms of specific neural structure of the system. However, I argue that neural specificity is not fully demonstrated in psychology. Second, Fodorian modularity is an internally specified property of a cognitive system. Modularity, however, can be understood as an external property, a property that is specified by a cognitive system's relation to other objects and properties in the world.

Presenting jury instructions at the pretrial stage of a trial may have benefits for how jurors evaluate evidence and for juror satisfaction. It is not yet clear what effect such instructions have on juror bias. Instruction to the jury prior to trial might reduce the effects of juror bias on verdict decisions. But, instruction prior to jury selection might encourage potential jurors to mask biases, making it more difficult for attorneys to obtain information during voir dire. This paper reports a natural experiment which sheds some empirical light on the question. The judge in a homicide case gave the first group of prospective jurors only a brief orientation lecture. The second group received an additional 15-minute lecture that consisted of legal instructions on procedure and proof. The paper reports analyses comparing the two groups and suggests implications of voir dire instruction on bias in the jury pool.