No abstract

Canadian clinical psychology professors in programs accredited by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) are generally expected to perform in 3 major domains-research, teaching, and service. Measurement of performance in these domains is complicated. Research productivity, as measured by publication and citation counts, are often touted as objective metrics for evaluating professorial research performance; however, such quantifications can be problematic. Despite concerns, evaluators continue to use publication and citation counts for evaluating psychology professors. Use of these metrics without normative data is extremely problematic; moreover, without ceiling reference points or identification of outliers, new professors and those evaluating them have no perspective on reasonable expectations. The current study provides normative data and ceiling reference points using publically available data for the 255 professors currently in CPA-accredited Canadian clinical psychology programs, as well as submissions from an invited subset of those same professors. The data were stratified by professorial rank and sex, with the men and women having the highest publication and citation counts identified to create ceiling references. The results suggest that most CPA-accredited Canadian clinical psychology professors publish between 0 and 4 articles annually. Men publish significantly more than women at the Assistant and Full professorial ranks (p Ͻ .05), but not at the Associate rank (p Ͼ .10). Evidence also suggests that professors cannot be appropriately rank-ordered based on any single research index. Comprehensive results, implications, limitations, contextually based caveats, and directions for future research are discussed.

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and the Social Phobia Scale (SPS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) are companion scales developed to measure anxiety in social interaction and performance situations, respectively. The measures have strong discriminant and convergent validity; however, their factor structures remain debated, and furthermore, the combined administration length (i.e., 39 items) can be prohibitive for some settings. There have been 4 attempts to assess the factor structures of the scales and reduce the item content: the 14-item Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS; Carleton et al., 2009), the 12-item SIAS-6/SPS-6 (Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, Rapee, & Mattick, 2012), the 21-item abbreviated SIAS/SPS (ASIAS/ASPS; Kupper & Denollet, 2012), and the 12-item Readability SIAS and SPS (RSIAS/RSPS; Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, Gier-Lonsway, & Kim, 2012). The current study compared the short forms on (a) factor structure, (b) ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical populations, (c) sensitivity to change following therapy, and (d) convergent validity with related measures. Participants included 3,607 undergraduate students (55% women) and 283 patients with social anxiety disorder (43% women). Results of confirmatory factor analyses, sensitivity analyses, and correlation analyses support the robust utility of items in the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 relative to the other short forms; furthermore, the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 were also supported by convergent validity analyses within the undergraduate sample. The RSIAS/RSPS and the ASIAS/ASPS were least supported, based on the current results and the principle of parsimony. Accordingly, researchers and clinicians should consider carefully which of the short forms will best suit their needs.

No abstract

Objectives Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) underlies several psychological disorders, and religion may help some individuals cope with IU and/or protect against psychological symptoms. It was hypothesized that IU would moderate the relations between coping motives for being religious, as well as religiosity, and common psychological disorder symptoms: Depression and social evaluation fears. Methods Study 1 included 473 self‐reporting community members (M age = 48, 48% female, 80% Protestant/Catholic). Study 2 included 412 self‐reporting undergraduates ( M age = 19, 71% female, 76% Protestant/Catholic). Results For Study 1, coping‐based motives related to greater depression for young adults with above‐average IU and to lower depression for young adults with below‐average IU. For Study 2, religiosity related to lower depression and fear of negative evaluation for individuals with above‐average IU and to greater fear of positive evaluation for individuals with below‐average IU. Conclusion IU may be an important mechanism between aspects of religion and psychological disorder symptoms.