The same working memory and reading and writing achievement phenotypes (behavioral markers of genetic variants) validated in prior research with younger children and older adults in a multi-generational family genetics study of dyslexia were used to study 81 adolescent and young adults (ages 16 to 25) from that study. Dyslexia is impaired word reading and spelling skills below the population mean and ability to use oral language to express thinking. These working memory predictor measures were given and used to predict reading and writing achievement: Coding (storing and processing) heard and spoken words (phonological coding), read and written words (orthographic coding), base words and affixes (morphological coding), and accumulating words over time (syntax coding); Cross-Code Integration (phonological loop for linking phonological name and orthographic letter codes and orthographic loop for linking orthographic letter codes and finger sequencing codes), and Supervisory Attention (focused and switching attention and self-monitoring during written word finding). Multiple regressions showed that most predictors explained individual difference in at least one reading or writing outcome, but which predictors explained unique variance beyond shared variance depended on outcome. ANOVAs confirmed that research-supported criteria for dyslexia validated for younger children and their parents could be used to diagnose which adolescents and young adults did (n=31) or did not (n=50) meet research criteria for dyslexia. Findings are discussed in reference to the heterogeneity of phenotypes (behavioral markers of genetic variables) and their application to assessment for accommodations and ongoing instruction for adolescents and young adults with dyslexia.

The authors studied whether the disproportionate number of female clients seen in counseling centers was due to referral patterns related to the gender of the referral recipient or the gender or age of the referral source. Faculty, staff, and students (N = 1,458) on 3 university campuses indicated their likelihood of referring a student to psychological counseling, for each of 6 problems presented in brief written vignettes. Only gender of the student presenting the problem was manipulated. Results indicated that men were less likely than women to refer at all 3 institutions. Older persons were more likely to refer at 2 institutions. At 1 institution, older persons were more apt to refer only when the recipient was a man. Gender of the referral recipient was not significant. The authors discuss the findings, indicate areas for further investigation, and make suggestions for college and university counseling centers.

This article addresses intercultural tolerance, the need to measure that construct, and the development of a new diagnostic inventory, the Intercultural Tolerance Scale. Issues discussed include background, development, and preliminary test reliabilities and validities.

This paper is a response to Hofstede's review of our description of work on an intercultural tolerance scale. Responses to Hofstede's concerns about the need for input from other cultures, validity, and citation issues are made. We encourage further study, refinement, and testing of the validity of the scale.