Self-compassion has emerged as a relatively new construct in the psychological sciences, and brought with it potential as an additional psychological dimension of health and well-being (Neff, 2003a; Zessin, Dickhaüser, & Garbade, 2015). Neff's Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003b) is the most widely-used questionnaire to assess this construct, though has been challenged on the basis of its psychometric properties (Castilho, Pinto-Gouveia, & Duarte, 2015). Ongoing research continues to refute these concerns with the scale's psychometrics (Neff, 2016). To potentially grow the empirical support of the SCS as a meaningful aspect of psychological functioning, exploration of construct validity via multimethod approaches and predictive utility is indicated. The current study investigated self-compassion of recently-separated adults (N = 137) at study entry as assessed using the SCS, which were rated from multiple sources (self and observer) and obtained from multiple sources (in-laboratory and naturalistic environment). The study followed participants over an average of five months, collecting psychological distress measures at five visits, each one month apart. I found preliminary evidence that initial levels of observer-rated self-compassion predict later self-reported psychological functioning, replicating a prior finding in the literature (Sbarra, Smith, & Mehl, 2012), and may do so over and above one's own self-rated self-compassion. Predictive models indicated meaningful effects of particular psychological covariates, such as depression, attachment style, and self-esteem, which may play a role in the relationship between self-compassion and psychological functioning. This research expands current knowledge on self-compassion as a psychological construct and its potential as a protective factor against psychological maladjustment following a major life stressor.

BACKGROUND: The Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) are considered reliable and valid for measuring depressive symptom severity and screening for a depressive disorder. Few studies have examined the convergent or divergent validity of these two measures, and none has been conducted among low-income women-although rates of depression in this group are extremely high. Moreover, variation in within-subject scores suggests that these measures may be less comparable in select subgroups. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare these two measures in terms of construct validity and to examine whether within-subject differences in depressive symptom severity scores could be accounted for by select characteristics in low-income women. METHODS: In a sample of 308 low-income women, construct validity was assessed using a multitrait-monomethod matrix approach, between-instrument differences in continuous symptom severity scores were regressed on select characteristics using backward stepwise selection, and differences in depressive symptom classification were assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Convergent validity was high (rs = .80, p < .001). Among predictors that included age, race, education, number of chronic health conditions, history of depression, perceived stress, anxiety, and/or the number of generalized symptoms, none explained within-subject differences in depressive symptom scores between the BDI-II and the PHQ-9 (p > .05, R2 < .04). Similarly, there was consistency in depressive symptom classification (χ = 172 and 172.6, p < .0001). DISCUSSION: These findings demonstrate that the BDI-II and the PHQ-9 perform similarly among low-income women in terms of depressive symptom severity measurement and classifying levels of depressive symptoms, and do not vary across subgroups on the basis of select demographics.

Reading comprehension assessments often vary from one measure to another related to the response format required, passage length and other variables. Yet, these measures purport to assess the same skill of reading comprehension, and they are often used interchangeably. Over the last decade some reading researchers have raised concerns that the variability in reading comprehension assessments may mean these measures are assessing different components of reading comprehension instead of consistently assessing one well-defined, complex skill. This study compared two commonly used reading comprehension assessments: the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Reading Comprehension (WIAT-RC) subtest, which requires examinees to read longer passages and answer open ended questions, and the Woodcock Johnson Passage Comprehension test (WJ-PC), which requires examinees to read very short passages and fill in the one word that is missing. This study was designed to test whether performance on these two measures is predicted by the same underlying language and executive functioning skills (a form of convergent validity) and whether these two measures are commensurate in predicting performance on a ‘real-world’ reading comprehension task (GRE verbal questions), with the latter being a test of ecological validity. Results suggested that the two measures varied in their ability to predict performance on the GRE verbal questions, where the WJ-PC significantly predicted performance on these questions, while the WIAT-RC did not. None of the executive functioning skills included in analyses significantly predicted performance on either the WJ-PC or the WIAT-RC, so no difference was found there; however, there were differences in how the language skills predicted performance on the two measures. Both vocabulary and word reading predicted significantly more variance in performance on the WJ-PC than the WIAT-RC. Overall, these results suggest there are important differences between these two reading comprehension measures, related to which underlying skills influence performance on each measure and the two tests’ ecological validity. These differences raise concerns about how well the reading comprehension construct has been defined and how consistently that complex skill is assessed across different measures. In addition, the differences between these two tests should be considered by clinicians who use and interpret scores on these measures in clinical settings.

No description available.

The purpose of the current study was to examine levels of treatment acceptability associated with three frequently implemented interventions (medication, token economy with response cost, and time-out) for children with characteristics of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). An additional purpose was to investigate the influence that the professional affiliation or label (i.e., special education teacher, school psychologist, and pediatrician) of the consultant making a treatment recommendation may have on the acceptability of a proposed treatment for a child displaying characteristics of ADHD. The participants consisted of 63 members of school assistance teams recruited from southwestern school districts. Participants read a case description of a child displaying characteristics of ADHD and a treatment vignette which manipulated the type of treatment recommended and the occupational title of the consultant making the treatment recommendation. Participants then rated the acceptability of the treatments using the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in treatment acceptability ratings, with medication receiving less acceptable ratings than the other treatments and that the medication treatment was considered less acceptable when recommend by a special education teacher than when recommended by either a school psychologist or a pediatrician. A statistically significant interaction was identified between the consultant recommending the treatment and the type of treatment. This study investigated whether the consultant making a treatment recommendation impacted the level to which the treatment was accepted. This is unique in that the influence of the consultant making a treatment recommendation has not previously been studied in the literature on treatment acceptability. This finding may be useful when considering the frequency in which consultants from different occupations make recommendations. Recommendations for future research in treatment acceptability are discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

Background: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is the most common congenital craniofacial anomaly, which may negatively impact one’s appearance, health-related quality of life, and facial function. The course of treatment is intensive and multifaceted. Patients with CL/P can undergo numerous procedures, with the goal of improving their appearance or facial function. To assess the outcomes of treatment in patients, a well-developed, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument is required. The CLEFT-Q is a new patient-reported outcome instrument developed to evaluate outcomes of treatment in patients aged 8 to 29 years with cleft lip and/or palate. The purpose of this thesis was to establish content validity and transferability of the CLEFT-Q. Methods: Study 1 of this thesis presents findings from cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback. Patients aged between 6 and 29 years were recruited from 6 plastic surgery clinics. Healthcare providers and experts from 8 countries participated in a focus group or provided individual feedback. Input was sought on all aspects of the CLEFT-Q development, including item wording, instructions, response options, and to identify missing content. Studies 2 and 3 present findings from the translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q to evaluate its transferability. Guidelines set forth by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) were applied. Results: Study 1 involved 69 patients and 44 experts who reviewed the CLEFT-Q. The first draft of the CLEFT-Q consisted of 163 items measuring 12 constructs. Three rounds of interviews and expert feedback were needed to establish content validity. At the completion of the cognitive interviews and expert review, the CLEFT-Q comprised 171 items within 13 scales that measure appearance (of the face, nose, nostrils, teeth, lips, jaws, cleft lip scar), health-related quality of life (psychological, social, school, speech-related distress), and facial function (speech, eating/drinking). Studies 2 and 3 involved the translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q from English to 6 different languages including Arabic, Catalan, Dutch, Hindi, Swedish, Turkish, and 3 Spanish language varieties (Colombian, Chilean, and Spain). A total of 18 (12%), 18 (12%), 7 (5%), and 4 (3%) items were difficult to translate during the forward translations for the Arabic, Swedish, Dutch, and Hindi versions respectively. Among the Spanish varieties (study 3) only 10 (7%) items were difficult to translate into Chilean. Comparison of the back translation to the source language version of the CLEFT-Q identified that the meaning of 40 (26%), 17 (11%), 9 (6%), and 5 (3%) items in the Turkish, Arabic, Hindi, and Swedish translations respectively had changed and required re-translation, and none were changed for the Dutch translation in study 2. Similarly, in study 3, back translations identified 23 (15%), 21 (13%), 12 (8%), and 10 (6%) items in the Colombian, Catalan, Chilean, and Spanish (Spain) versions respectively whose meanings were changed. Study 2 cognitive debriefing interview participants were mostly below 20 years of age (n= 36, 88%) with CL/P (n=30, 73%). Participants in study 3 were primarily male (n=14, 67%) diagnosed with CL/P (n=17, 81%). Overall, participants in the cognitive debriefing interviews described the CLEFT-Q as understandable and easy to complete. Conclusion: This thesis presents evidence of the CLEFT-Q’s content validity and transferability. After the completion of study 1, no changes were required to the original CLEFT-Q conceptual framework; however, cognitive interviews and expert review allowed us to identify items that required re-wording, re-conceptualizing, to removal, or addition. Finally, the process of translating and culturally adapting the CLEFT-Q in studies 2 and 3 was useful for finalizing the CLEFT-Q scales, and provided evidence of its transferability to other contexts. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Background: Treatment of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is intensive and involves multiple procedures to improve ones appearance or facial function. To assess outcomes of treatment in patients with CL/P, a well-developed, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument is required. The purpose of this thesis was to establish content validity and transferability of the CLEFT-Q. Methods: Cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback were obtained in Study 1. Input was sought on the CLEFT-Q item wording, instructions, response options, and to identify missing content. Studies 2 and 3 involved the translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q to evaluate its transferability. Results: Three rounds of cognitive interviews with patients and expert feedback were needed to establish content validity of the CLEFT-Q in study 1. Studies 2 and 3 involved the translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q from English to 6 different languages including Arabic, Catalan, Dutch, Hindi, Swedish, Turkish, and 3 Spanish language varieties (Colombian, Chilean, and Spain). Translation and cultural adaptation processes provided evidence of the CLEFT-Qs transferability. Conclusion: This thesis presents evidence of the CLEFT-Q’s content validity and transferability.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of ease of evaluation of dimensions on the construct validity of a selection assessment center conducted in 1993. High ease of evaluation dimensions, operationalized as the greatest proportion of highly diagnostic behaviors, were expected to demonstrate greater construct and criterion related validity. Multitrait-multimethod analysis and confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that high ease of evaluation dimensions demonstrated greater convergent and discriminant validity than low ease of evaluation dimensions. Contrary to predictions, however, there was little difference in the criterion related validity of the high versus low ease of evaluation dimensions. Moreover, the entire assessment center yielded extremely low predictive validity using both dimension and exercise scores as predictors. The implications of the findings from this study are discussed. / Ph. D.

Each year, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) receive around 60 million dollars in federal funding. In order to document impacts, it is critical that these programs utilize valid and reliable instruments. By having validated instruments that measure behavior changes, it can be documented that these federally funded programs are achieving program objectives. To date, research on measurements of change is either lacking or under-reported. The goal of this study was to develop a valid and reliable assessment instrument to be utilized with a specific curriculum titled Healthy Futures, which is used within Virginia FSNE. To accomplish this, an expert panel was assembled to conceptualize and construct the instrument. The instrument was pilot-tested, evaluated, then finalized and tested. Results with 73 individuals representing 34 white, non-Hispanics and 36 non-Hispanic blacks, found that the physical activity and dietary quality domains of the instrument had achieved an acceptable test-retest reliability coefficient of .70, however the food safety domain achieved a 0.51. For validity, the instrument scored an overall Spearman Correlation Coefficient of 0.28 for physical activity, 0.34 for food safety, and 0.20 for dietary quality. All three domains were sensitive to change (p < 0.0001). The results indicate that this instrument could detect dietary and physical activity change among limited resource participants of FSNE with confidence. / Master of Science