“What is the Point of School Anyway?”: Refugee Youth, Educational Quality, and Resettlement Tunnel Vision

Abstract Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.

Download Full-text

Impairment Questions and Answers

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.1999.julaug02 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 4-4

Keyword(s):

Symptom Validity ◽

Validity Testing ◽

Symptom Validity Testing ◽

Negative Results ◽

Tunnel Vision ◽

Questions And Answers ◽

Blurry Vision ◽

Fatigue Evaluation ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Rule Out

Abstract Symptom validity testing, also known as forced-choice testing, is a way to assess the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness—the common feature of which is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. Symptom validity testing comprises two elements: A specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared with the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. Scoring below a norm can be explained in many different ways (eg, fatigue, evaluation anxiety, limited intelligence, and so on), but scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deception. The positive predictive value of the symptom validity technique likely is quite high because there is no alternative explanation to deliberate distortion when performance is below the probability of chance. The sensitivity of this technique is not likely to be good because, as with a thermometer, positive findings indicate that a problem is present, but negative results do not rule out a problem. Although a compelling conclusion is that the examinee who scores below probabilities is deliberately motivated to perform poorly, malingering must be concluded from the total clinical context.

Download Full-text

Process Accountability as a De-Escalation Technique

Journal of Personnel Psychology ◽

10.1027/1866-5888/a000245 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 63-74

Author(s):

Klaus Moser ◽

Hans-Georg Wolff ◽

Roman Soucek

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Processes ◽

Information Search ◽

Employment Relationship ◽

Escalation Of Commitment ◽

Tunnel Vision ◽

Course Of Action ◽

Performance Problems ◽

Over Time ◽

Biased Information

Abstract. Escalation of commitment occurs when a course of action is continued despite repeated drawbacks (e.g., maintaining an employment relationship despite severe performance problems). We analyze process accountability (PA) as a de-escalation technique that helps to discontinue a failing course of action and show how time moderates both the behavioral and cognitive processes involved: (1) Because sound decisions should be based on (hopefully unbiased) information search, which requires time to gather, the effect of PA on de-escalation increases over time. (2) Because continuing information search creates behavioral commitment, the debiasing effect of PA on information search diminishes over time. (3) Consistent with the tunnel vision notion, the effects of less biased information search on de-escalation decrease over time.

Download Full-text