A test of social adjustment.

Abstract

Since the great majority of children in this population were over 14.5 years of age, and since this was the assumed adult mental age used in deriving mental ages from chronological ages and I. Q. s, the M. A. s in this population are almost wholly functions of the I. Q. s.2 Self correlation obtained from population of college students retested after one semester.3 Spurious correlation has been deducted. In Musselman's formula ( 8 ) t/s = spurious r of a single test with a composite of which it is a part (t, being number of elements in a single test and s being number of elements in the composite), S was counted as 165 although it would be possible to earn 175 theoretically. Actually the maximum score in all elements except the wish element was frequently approached. Therefore, the obtained spurious r may be regarded as a little too low for all elements except the wish element, and for this it is a little too high.* Obtained from college students retested after one month. B Obtained by applying Brown's prophesy formula to a reliability of .90 ± .01 yielded by the sum of test elements exclusive of wishes. The N in the formula was counted as 1 2. However, by another population of college students the reliability of the whole OSPA score was the same (namely, .90 ± .02) as for the sum of the OSP elements alone.

The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed.

“…In one of the earliest studies of sympathy, Boeck (1909) sent questionnaires to parents for information about instances of sympathy in their children. Washburn (1935) incorporated sympathy in a social adjustment investigation, and Berne (1930), Bathurst (1933), andMurphy (1937) studied sympathy in nursery school children, using rating scales of sympathetic behavior, projective tests, and interviews with teachers and parents. They showed that sympathy in children is a well-defined characteristic and that it had manifold expressions that could be investigated.…”

The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

“…One of the most important failings of almost all structured personality tests is their susceptibility to "faking" or "lying" in one way or another, as well as their even greater susceptibility to unconscious self-deception and role-playing on the part of individuals who may be consciously quite honest and sincere in their responses. The possibility of such factors having an invalidating effect upon the scores obtained has been mentioned by many writers, including Adams (1941), Allport (1928Allport ( , 1937Allport ( , 1942, Bernreuter (1933aBernreuter ( ,b, 1940, Bills (1941), Bordin (1943), Eisenberg and Wesman (1941), Guilford and Guilford (1936), Humm and Humm (1944), Humm and Wadsworth (1935), Kelly, Miles and Terman (1936), Laird (1925), Landis and Katz (1934), Maller (1930), Olson (1936), Rosenzweig (1934Rosenzweig ( , 1938, Ruch (1942), Strong (1943), Symonds (1932), Vernon (1934), Washburne (1935), Willoughby [and Morse] (1936) and others. One of the assumed advantages of the projective methods is that they are relatively less influenced by such distorting factors, although this assumption should be critically evaluated.…”

“…This score was included to detect both lying and unintentional inaccuracy, and the author reports that interviews with people showing very low objectivity scores showed that "it was useless to question them." A very low objectivity score was said to invalidate the test as a whole, and a weighted objectivity score was included in the total score on the entire test (Washburne, 1935).…”

Análise Conceitual Da Expressão “Socioemocional” Em Artigos De Psicologia

“…Em uma perspectiva histórica, referências datadas da primeira metade do século XX já buscavam integrar a investigação da emoção ao desenvolvimento social. Os primeiros registros encontrados apontam investigações que vinculavam comportamentos sociais à capacidade de regulação e desenvolvimento emocional em crianças, tendo sua origem na avaliação psicológica e nas teorias de personalidade na década de 1930 (Guilford & Braly, 1930;Washburne, 1935). Pesquisas sobre a temática remetem também ao desenvolvimento socioemocional de crianças em contextos de institucionalização (Fried & Mayer, 1948).…”