Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-106). / vi, 106 leaves, bound 29 cm

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

Thesis (M.Ed. in Religion Ed.)--University of South Australia, 1995.

Consistent evidence confirms that the addition of fluoride to achieve an optimal concentration in potable water supplies is both safe and effective in reducing community caries experience. While public acceptance and use of water fluoridation in Australia has been high for forty years, its implementation in Queensland remained low until December 2008. Political and social scientists have long recognised that the formation and maintenance of public policy in Australia is a complex interactive process involving inter alia government, bureaucracy, pressure groups and voters. However, explanations of the factors influencing the outcome of a proposal to fluoridate a municipal water supply remain inadequate. The long evolution of adjusted fluoridation has its genesis in pre-1930 North American concerns over the disfigurement associated with endemic dental mottling. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, many perceived this affliction as the visible manifestation of a public health problem: chronic fluoride intoxication. Reports of environmental contamination of the food chain from naturally over-fluoridated water and agrarian and industrial practices only increased community doubts about the accumulative and toxic potential of fluoride. For these and other reasons the public perception of fluoride was poor. Between 1937 and 1945, USPHS dental researcher and later Director of the National Institute of Dental Research HT Dean and co-workers emerged as the few who understood the fine line between fluoride therapy and toxicity. Their investigations involved not only specialised interpretations of human dental epidemiology but also multidisciplinary studies of human and animal fluoride exposure and homeostasis. However, decisions to implement water fluoridation had to come from the relevant government authorities. Here scientific knowledge faced political reality. Apart from perceived safety issues and resistance to the compulsory nature of water fluoridation, many other barriers to water fluoridation emerged: incompletely understood pharmacodynamics of fluoride; confounding issues in the initiation and propagation of caries; community acceptance of this epidemic; and political sensitivities regarding water. This scientific and social background explained why adjusted fluoridation was amenable to both challenge and misrepresentation. In the US, the constitutional, institutional and financial network provided the basis for an enduring culture of dental research that eventually provided the multidisciplinary evidence to endorse the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation. Although Australians did not experience a widespread human mottling problem akin to that in the United States, Australian fluoride advocates faced similar opposition. The Australian constitution, state parochialism and decentralisation compounded by vast distances fragmented the responsibilities for research, health and water treatment. Each state had limited resources and faced these responsibilities in its own way. Although there were several early attempts in some states at regional dental field studies, meaningful national dental epidemiology did not emerge until 1993. Hence, much of the supportive evidence for fluoridation in Australia had to be imported from North America. This background meant that wherever fluoridation was widely implemented in Australia, state authority played a role. In addition to the general social and scientific concerns about fluoride and fluoridation, before 1957 there were a number of unresolved scientific factors relating to naturally over-fluoridated ground water, climate, tea consumption and fluid homeostasis involving canecutters. These made Queensland different in the Australian context. After 1957, as these scientific concerns in Queensland diminished, the political landscape changed and provided new foundations for political hesitance and expedience. The timing and circumstances of the promulgation of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963) influenced its nature to the extent that until 2008, this legislation with its link to various local government acts was unique within Australia. Although there were notable exceptions such as the decisions to fluoridate water supplies at Townsville and Mareeba, this legislative background established the “Queensland difference” as a fixture in fluoride debates across the state. When combined with inadequate state funding and a lack of political resolve from parliamentarians and councillors, prospects for fluoridation in Queensland were virtually paralysed. Nonetheless, while inquiry into the political reasons for the implementing or the failure to implement fluoridation remains thin, developments in Queensland after December 2007 lend significant weight to the finding that a politically resolute centralised authority with the responsibility for both health and water are key components in the outcome.

Thesis (master's)--Universität, Trier, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [145]-160).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--McMaster University (Canada), 1991. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 53-11, Section: B, page: 5618. Supervisor: Henry P. Schwarcz.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--McMaster University (Canada), 1996. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-10, Section: B, page: 6038. Adviser: C. D. Rollo.

Florida-State-Univ., Diss.--Tallahassee, 2006.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-144).

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 85-87).