The standard of Wireless Metropolis Area Network, IEEE 802.16e, has mechanisms beyond the static standard, IEEE 802.16d, to cope with mobile nodes. One of the mechanisms is the handover procedure. Mobile node scanning of neighbor BSs in the IEEE 802.16e handover procedure has a procedure: Association. Association is an initial ranging procedure. The transmission is discontinued when a mobile node is scanning of neighbor BSs. Because initial ranging procedure is defined from the static standard, the delay time of association becomes a bottleneck of handover. One of the researches, NFHO (Network-assisted Fast Handover), proposes a method -¡¨Fast Association¡¨ to shorten the scanning time. In the method, the serving BS coordinates neighbor stations the exactly synchronization time for mobile node transmission of the initial ranging code. Another method of NFHO is to add an equipment, CSSC (Convergence Sublayer Switch Center). CSSC stores and broadcasts the data packets which are discontinued between handover. The metric proposed in this thesis called RAPHO (Rapid Association and Prediction-assisted Handover) which can shorten much scanning discontinued time. In one part of RAPHO, the serving BS takes the role of the mobile node to send the initial ranging code; in another part, the serving BS predicts the possible target BSs list. Because the mobile node doesn¡¦t participate in association and the number of scanning neighbor BSs is decreased, the improving scanning delay time of RAPHO is better than that of NFHO. According to the result of simulation, the total delay time (the scanning time plus the handover time) of RAPHO is better than that of NFHO.

In meiner Dissertationsschrift unterschied ich zwischen expliziten und impliziten Repräsentationen der eigenen Persönlichkeit und konzeptualisierte diese als Teile des reflektiven bzw. impulsiven Systems (Strack & Deutsch, in press). Am Beispiel der Persönlichkeitseigenschaften Schüchternheit, Ängstlichkeit und Ärgerlichkeit erfasste ich implizite Repräsentationen des Persönlichkeits-Selbstkonzeptes mit Hilfe von Impliziten Assoziations Tests (IATs, Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998) und den neuen Impliziten Assoziations Prozeduren (IAPs) als indirekte Messverfahren. Im Gegensatz zu direkten Fragebogen-Verfahren, die das explizite Persönlichkeits-Selbstkonzept erfassen, stellen indirekte Verfahren chronometrische Messverfahren dar, die das direkte Fragen nach Selbsteinschätzungen vermeiden. Die Ergebnisse zeigten vier wichtige Dissoziationen zwischen direkten und indirekten Verfahren bei der Messung des Persönlichkeits-Selbstkonzeptes. Erstens waren indirekte Verfahren robuster gegen Verfälschungsinstruktionen als direkte Verfahren. Zweitens war die konvergente Validität zwischen indirekten Verfahren geringer als zwischen direkten Verfahren. Drittens leisteten indirekte Verfahren einen inkrementellen Beitrag zur Vorhersage von Verhalten. Viertens waren indirekte Verfahren weniger geeignet für das gleichzeitige Erfassen von zwei unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften als direkte Verfahren. / In my dissertation thesis I differentiated between explicit and implicit representations of one’s own personality and considered them as elements of reflective and impulsive information processing, respectively (Strack & Deutsch, in press). Using the traits of shyness, anxiousness, and angriness as examples, I assessed implicit representations of the personality self-concept with the Implicit Association Tests (IATs, Greenwald McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) and the new Implicit Association Procedures (IAPs) as the tools for indirect measures. In contrast to direct questionnaire measures that assess the explicit personality self-concept, indirect measures are chronometric procedures that avoid asking direct self-judgment questions. The results showed four important dissociations between direct and indirect measures in the assessment of the personality self-concept. First, indirect measures were more robust against faking than direct measures. Second, the convergent validity between indirect measures was lower than that between direct measures. Third, indirect measures added incremental validity to the prediction of behavior. Fourth, indirect measures were less apt for the concurrent assessment of two traits within one sample than direct measures.