Reply to Hyman and to Levy.

Replies to the objections of A. Hyman (1981) and S. M. Levy (1981) concerning the author's (see record 1980-10503-001) rejection of psychotherapy as the treatment of choice in health-habit modification (HHM). The case is restated for a shift away from an emphasis on intrapsychic variables in HHM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Humphreys and to Jensen.

Replies to L. G. Humphrey's (see PA, Vol 56:Issue 2) and A. R. Jensen's (see PA, Vol 56:Issue 2) criticisms of the authors' study on the effects of verbal strategy training on race differences in nonverbal reasoning test performance. The authors agree with Humphrey's argument that significant interactions cannot be proven with nested designs, although it is pointed out that his suggestion that there were large numbers of low-scoring Ss in both groups who did not understand the directions is misleading, since it ignores the other low scorers who were merely inefficient problem solvers. It is also argued that Jensen's implication that demonstrations of training effects are irrelevant for conclusions about racial genetic differences or the absence of such differences is incorrect because successful training logically eliminates the possibility of genetic inabilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Fiedorowicz.

We appreciate the fact that Fiedorowicz has chosen to comment on our review of Reading disabilities (see record 2007-03865-001) because this provides us with an opportunity to expand on some of our previous remarks. However, since these positive features already had received coverage in the review by Goodacre (1982), and since over two-thirds of the book dealt with the authors' own research (which was not discussed in any depth by Goodacre), we chose to restrict ourselves mainly to concerns raised by this research. Our response will have the same focus. To begin with, there are a number of misleading statements in Fiedorowicz's letter that distort both the tone and the content of our review. Fiedorowicz contends, contrary to the conclusion that we reached in our review, that "distinct neuropsychological profiles were determined corresponding to each subtype." The second issue raised by Fiedorowicz deals with our concern about the construct validity of the various test items employed in this investigation. The third issue in Fiedorowicz's letter centres on the interpretation of the results reported by Doehring et al. for the Type S subjects. The last issue of any substance in this letter has to do with the label "oral reading deficit" given by the authors to the Type O subjects. In addition to these four issues there is one final point that we believe also merits a reply. In referring rather pessimistically to the matter of treatment in our review, we were merely repeating comments made by the authors themselves in Chapter 11. Because this review was written in August 1983, we were of course unaware of the information in the paper cited by Fiedorowicz, which was not presented until February 1984. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Stagner.

This is written in response to Ross Stagner's comments (see record 2005-11890-003) concerning the publication of books of readings. First, it is my experience that it is far easier to author a book than edit readings. I don't assume that people who write the original articles that finally find themselves in a book of readings are any more creative than the editors. I don't know how much of a reputation any one gets from authorship or editing a readings book. As for "good solid cash" (to use Stagner's words) I have yet to see some and my experience is not unique. I have paid out a considerable amount of money in secretarial fees alone. If I recoup the money I have expended I will be fortunate. As for so-called profits, if I send one copy of the book to each author and his co-author(s) who contributed an article for a book of readings--well, there goes the "good solid cash." Second, there are many articles that are rescued from the scrap pile by a book of readings. My suggestion is that after the editor of a readings book recoups his expenses in preparing the book, copies of the book be sent to clinics or libraries which are on a limited budget. Copies may even be sent to some of the "underprivileged nations." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Algina.

Responds to J. Algina's criticism of the present author's article on intraclass correlation reliability coefficients (1976). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Leong.

Reply to the comment by Che Kan Leong (see record 2007-07332-017). Downing and Leong take issue with my statement, "The authors recommend some variation of the IQ/achievement discrepancy formula as a definition of reading disability." It appears to me that they are, in fact, recommending an IQ/achievement discrepancy formula. The source for my statement is the discussion on pages 305-306 of Downing and Leong, in particular, the statement on p. 306: "Overall, the regression approach is generally sound and statistically defensible." The regression approach that Downing and Leong discuss is one in which a child's reading level (as measured by a particular test) is related to the child's score on an IQ test. As I noted in my review, this type of equation assumes that IQ and reading can be measured independently are likely to be deficient in the reading-disabled individual, a child with a real reading disability may have spuriously low IQ scores but may not be diagnosed as reading disabled because of a low IQ score. Until investigators agree on some operational definitions or at least attempt to study questions as a function of different operational definitions, advancement in this field will be difficult to achieve. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Silverman.

Replies to comments by L. H. Silverman (see record 1982-21579-001) on the author's (see record 1980-32531-001) earlier criticism of and failure to replicate Silverman's subliminal symbiotic stimulation as an adjunct to systematic desensitization. The role of individual differences and the implications for a failure to replicate effects of subliminal psychodynamic activation in light of other supportive evidence are discussed. Silverman contends that the results of a particular kind of study using subliminal psychodynamic activation cannot properly be generalized to all studies using this method; the author proposes an alternative view. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Lansdell.

Responds to H. Lansdell's (see record 1986-26381-001) contention that the present author's (see record 1986-11050-001) article on the moral status of research animals in psychology may condone immorality, arguing that Lansdell's discussion contains elementary logical fallacies and that nothing in the present author's article entails a position that would condone breaking into laboratories. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Greenwald.

Discusses Greenwald's (see 40:6) analysis of the implications of Nuttin's work for the status of the law of effect. The argument that Nuttin's findings constitute a decisive refutation of the hypothesis of automatic action of rewards and punishments is examined. It is concluded, largely on methodological grounds, that Nuttin's experiments failed to test the validity of the law of effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Tryon.

The author responds to Tryon's article, "Psychology in Flux: The Academic-Professional Bipolarity" (American Psychologist, 1963, 18, 134-143; see record 1964-01637-001) in which Tryon writes, "It is doubtful that academic psychology does or should have much direct [sic] applicability to real life situations [p. 142]." The present author takes issue with this, stating that the fallacy inherent in such statements must be recognized, as well as how these only serve to perpetuate a straw man in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Campbell.

Replies to a comment by D. P. Campbell (see record 2005-10285-002) regarding statistical correlations in the author's article on work satisfaction and scores on an occupational interest inventory (see record 1964-06693-001). To answer Campbell's criticism, it appears that there were some problems with the Artist scale in my Inventory, which is one of the six scales discussed in the article. It should be apparent to anyone experienced in the area of test construction that unusual situations do occur (here, for example, .999 correlation) and in some cases they are not readily apparent, but come out in working and reworking the data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Kamin.

Responds to L. J. Kamin's criticism of the present author's review on the IQs of adoptive children (see record 1976-00542-001). All single parent–offspring correlations regarding adoptive children were analyzed and, it is suggested, support the author's original conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Einhorn.

Responds to D. Einhorn's (see record 1986-26897-001) comments on the present authors' (see record 1986-11382-001) critique on moral development vs socialization by defending the importance of societalist and individualist analyses and by addressing Einborn's suggestion that the present authors abandon their eclecticism and take issue with the "criticism" of Kohlberg, which implies that Stages 3 and 4 should be viewed more favorably because those stages only involve "mindlessly obeying the letter of the law." (7 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Kurosawa.

Defends the 1st 2 authors' (see record 1982-30838-001) reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study and responds to criticism by K. Kurosawa (see record 1984-24820-001) regarding their conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Sudak.

Replies to H. M. Sudak's (1981) criticism of the American Psychological Association's publication of the present author's (1980) reservations about the use of animals in painful research. It is argued that although Sudak characterizes Bowd's position as being thinly disguised with a distorted sense of ethics and morality, none of his arguments are refuted. It is maintained that the issues raised are of serious ethical concern and are being debated by psychologists in many countries. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Poulton.

Contends that E. C. Poulton (see record 1993-02081-001), in his caveat against the use of within-Ss experimental designs in psychological research, carried his case too far. Repeated measures in some contexts did produce effects as a result of administering more than a single treatment to each S. The literature as surveyed by Poulton, however, did not rule out such designs as a general methodology. His survey was not representative of the psychological literature as a whole. Most of the studies cited conformed to a circumscribed area of research in which cumulative treatment effects were investigated for their own sake. Further, in a number of instances studies were misrepresented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Telch.

In response to M. J. Telch's (see record 1981-26281-001) criticism of the present author's (see record 1979-29008-001) paper, it is suggested that although the efficacy of certain techniques can be improved, failure to demonstrate that techniques are related to important differences in outcome may simply reflect inadequate research designs. The weight of evidence is that the effectiveness of techniques depends on their appropriateness to personal characteristics of patient and therapist, whose interactions are the major determinants of outcome. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Carman.

Comments on the article by Philip M. Carman (see record 1990-55857-001), in which he discussed the work of professional psychologists. The current author suggests that he was somewhat surprised to note that Carman overlooked diagnostic (or "psychodiagnostic") testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Woodward.

Addresses issues raised by C. A. Woodward's argument that several methodological strategies important for evaluating predictive validity of a psychological test are lacking in J. L. Boyd's (see record 1981-09211-001) study of the Hooper Visual Organization Test. The desirability of consecutive series designs is acknowledged, and the limitations are enumerated. Woodward's concerns regarding prevalence rates are felt to be well founded; however, there are no universally applicable base rates for brain damage, and it is the responsibility of clinicians using psychological tests to consider how base rates in their own work settings affect predictive validity. Warnings against overly test-controlled approaches to psychological assessment are given. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Silverman.

Responds to commentary by I. Silverman (see record 2007-08963-001) entitled "Review of Pure types are rare": Comment on book review. I do not think that either one of us will change his position, and therefore it is up to the interested (yet disinterested) reader to adjudicate our dispute by checking Professor Silverman's book and his references. In the process, the reader will be forced to consider the thought-provoking implications for our mental health system of some of the incidents which the author describes so vividly, and that will not be a bad thing. There is one point, however, which is worth pursuing further here, for Professor Silverman persists in an elementary statistical fallacy. Let us take the situation which he cites, where the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia is 50%. Suppose with the same base rate the degree of agreement is in fact 53%; this is far above chance level. It must be emphasized, however, that the 53% agreement under discussion came not from a study where the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia was 50%, but from one where the conditions were far more stringent since the base rate for diagnosing schizophrenia was around 20%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)