The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the limited number of observations that might be included in a performance assessment would adequately generalize to potential circumstances that would not be observed. Related studies were also conducted to determine how dependably scores are assigned to the measures of students' performance and how different information is provided by paper and pencil test versus performance assessment. A performance assessment was developed in the context of an introductory graduate statistics course and administered to the graduate students along with a paper and pencil test. / A generalizability study was used to estimate the dependability of the performance assessment and to improve the design of the assessment. Dependability of scoring was analyzed through the application of classical test theory and generalizability theory. Correlational and exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine the relative information provided by two test formats. / This study found that raters do not introduce substantial error into the measurement of performance. Rather, the major source of error is the inconsistency of student performance across tasks, indicating that the number of tasks could be increased to achieve a reliable score for student performance. The correlation between overall scores assigned by two raters and the results of G study suggest that raters are able to consistently evaluate student performance and eventually, the number of raters can be reduced to one and eliminated as a facet in the design of the generalizability study. Relatively high correlation was found between the two measures and there was no evidence of a format factor associated with the use of performance assessment. The factor analytic solution suggests a relationship between factor structure and item discrimination. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 56-04, Section: A, page: 1328. / Major Professor: Albert C. Oosterhof. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1995.

No description available.

No description available.

Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues presented longitudinal evidence for personality Type being related to disease. Type 1s (cancer prone) and Type 2s (CHD prone) were proposed to be dependent on others, in contrast to the autonomous Type 4s, who had a lower mortality rate at follow-up. Stress was the mechanism proposed to account for the effects of personality on disease, yet this claim has not been systematically investigated. Four studies compared responses of Type 1, 2 and 4 individuals to stress and non-stress tasks. Types 1 and 2 showed increased salivary cortisol responses to an uncontrollable maths stress task (relative to control) compared to Type 4s, and scored higher on perceived stress, state-anxiety, and measures of negative mood, consistent with the implications of the Grossarth-Maticek hypothesis. No significant differences were evident between the Types in response to progressive muscle relaxation, suggesting stress is necessary for Type differences to emerge. Further, Types 1 and 2 responded differently to different stressors (maths vs. exam), arguing against criticisms that Types 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. The relation between Grossarth-Maticek Type subscales was further clarified through their correlations with each other (controlling for mood, stress and social desirability), and with the Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms (LDM) inventory, a psychometric refinement of the Grossarth-Maticek scales. A prospective study examining mortality rates in a sample exposed to environmental noise stressors revealed no prediction of death or cause of death by Grossarth-Maticek Type. This may have been due to the relative youth of the sample, short (7 year) follow-up period, and consequently low death rate. The current research is the first to show different responses to different stressors between Types 1 and 2, and revealed converging evidence for the claim that stress is the mechanism for Type effects on disease. Additionally, theoretical issues in conceptions of stress, and models of the relation between the Types, stress and disease were considered. This project suggests that after a history of criticisms, the Grossarth-Maticek typology should be re-considered for its public health implications, and along with the LDM inventory, should be considered for further investigation of the relation between personality variables and disease.

Thesis (M.A.)--Wheaton College Graduate School, 2005. Action Research Paper (M.A.)--Wheaton College Graduate School, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-39).

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 260-263) Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 2005. / Also available in print.

Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues presented longitudinal evidence for personality Type being related to disease. Type 1s (cancer prone) and Type 2s (CHD prone) were proposed to be dependent on others, in contrast to the autonomous Type 4s, who had a lower mortality rate at follow-up. Stress was the mechanism proposed to account for the effects of personality on disease, yet this claim has not been systematically investigated. Four studies compared responses of Type 1, 2 and 4 individuals to stress and non-stress tasks. Types 1 and 2 showed increased salivary cortisol responses to an uncontrollable maths stress task (relative to control) compared to Type 4s, and scored higher on perceived stress, state-anxiety, and measures of negative mood, consistent with the implications of the Grossarth-Maticek hypothesis. No significant differences were evident between the Types in response to progressive muscle relaxation, suggesting stress is necessary for Type differences to emerge. Further, Types 1 and 2 responded differently to different stressors (maths vs. exam), arguing against criticisms that Types 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. The relation between Grossarth-Maticek Type subscales was further clarified through their correlations with each other (controlling for mood, stress and social desirability), and with the Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms (LDM) inventory, a psychometric refinement of the Grossarth-Maticek scales. A prospective study examining mortality rates in a sample exposed to environmental noise stressors revealed no prediction of death or cause of death by Grossarth-Maticek Type. This may have been due to the relative youth of the sample, short (7 year) follow-up period, and consequently low death rate. The current research is the first to show different responses to different stressors between Types 1 and 2, and revealed converging evidence for the claim that stress is the mechanism for Type effects on disease. Additionally, theoretical issues in conceptions of stress, and models of the relation between the Types, stress and disease were considered. This project suggests that after a history of criticisms, the Grossarth-Maticek typology should be re-considered for its public health implications, and along with the LDM inventory, should be considered for further investigation of the relation between personality variables and disease.

Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues presented longitudinal evidence for personality Type being related to disease. Type 1s (cancer prone) and Type 2s (CHD prone) were proposed to be dependent on others, in contrast to the autonomous Type 4s, who had a lower mortality rate at follow-up. Stress was the mechanism proposed to account for the effects of personality on disease, yet this claim has not been systematically investigated. Four studies compared responses of Type 1, 2 and 4 individuals to stress and non-stress tasks. Types 1 and 2 showed increased salivary cortisol responses to an uncontrollable maths stress task (relative to control) compared to Type 4s, and scored higher on perceived stress, state-anxiety, and measures of negative mood, consistent with the implications of the Grossarth-Maticek hypothesis. No significant differences were evident between the Types in response to progressive muscle relaxation, suggesting stress is necessary for Type differences to emerge. Further, Types 1 and 2 responded differently to different stressors (maths vs. exam), arguing against criticisms that Types 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. The relation between Grossarth-Maticek Type subscales was further clarified through their correlations with each other (controlling for mood, stress and social desirability), and with the Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms (LDM) inventory, a psychometric refinement of the Grossarth-Maticek scales. A prospective study examining mortality rates in a sample exposed to environmental noise stressors revealed no prediction of death or cause of death by Grossarth-Maticek Type. This may have been due to the relative youth of the sample, short (7 year) follow-up period, and consequently low death rate. The current research is the first to show different responses to different stressors between Types 1 and 2, and revealed converging evidence for the claim that stress is the mechanism for Type effects on disease. Additionally, theoretical issues in conceptions of stress, and models of the relation between the Types, stress and disease were considered. This project suggests that after a history of criticisms, the Grossarth-Maticek typology should be re-considered for its public health implications, and along with the LDM inventory, should be considered for further investigation of the relation between personality variables and disease.

Graduation date: 1947