Older adult homicide (OAH) is the most severe, yet understudied, form of older adult abuse. This study examined the case, victim and perpetrator characteristics of OAH. A secondary analysis of national data from England and Wales (2008-2019) was conducted where cases of non-stranger OAH (victims aged sixty years and over) were compared to adult homicide (victims aged eighteen to fifty-nine years) at the case, victim (n = 3,274) and perpetrator (n = 2,763) levels. Logistic regression models used to identify characteristics that were OAH risk factors, showed only a slight increase in predictive power but high accuracy in classifying adult homicide cases. Nevertheless, some risk factors known to be predictors of older adult abuse were significant predictors of OAH (e.g. living with the perpetrator, the perpetrator's mental state). Implications for research, policy and practice are discussed. This study set out to develop new knowledge around the severe and understudied issue of older adult homicide (OAH). To do this, we reviewed the records of all UK homicides between 2008 and 2019 held by the UK Home Office where victims and perpetrators were known to each other. We examined characteristics related to the case and victim in 3,274 records and characteristics of the perpetrators in 2,763 records. To draw conclusions about OAH, we compared cases involving victims aged sixty and over to cases with victims aged eighteen to fifty-nine. Characteristics were compared across age groups using logistic regression to determine if certain characteristics predicted OAH. Some characteristics were predictive of OAH (e.g. living with the perpetrator, the perpetrator's mental state) and are also known to predict older adult abuse. However, the analysis showed that the characteristics currently included in the dataset were more predictive of adult homicide than OAH. This suggests that additional national data should be collected which is more relevant to OAH and that older adult abuse risk factors may be helpful in that regard.

Metascience scholars have long been concerned with tracking the use of rhetorical language in scientific discourse, oftentimes to analyze the legitimacy and validity of scientific claim-making. Psychology, however, has only recently become the explicit target of such metascientific scholarship, much of which has been in response to the recent crises surrounding replicability of quantitative research findings and questionable research practices. The focus of this paper is on the rhetoric of psychological measurement and validity scholarship, in both the theoretical and methodological and empirical literatures. We examine various discourse practices in published psychological measurement and validity literature, including: (a) clear instances of rhetoric (i.e., persuasion or performance); (b) common or rote expressions and tropes (e.g., perfunctory claims or declarations); (c) metaphors and other “literary” styles; and (d) ambiguous, confusing, or unjustifiable claims. The methodological approach we use is informed by a combination of conceptual analysis and exploratory grounded theory, the latter of which we used to identify relevant themes within the published psychological discourse. Examples of both constructive and useful or misleading and potentially harmful discourse practices will be given. Our objectives are both to contribute to the critical methodological literature on psychological measurement and connect metascience in psychology to broader interdisciplinary examinations of science discourse.

This article describes the development of the Vancouver airways health literacy tool (VAHLT), a novel measure of skill-based health literacy specific to chronic airway diseases (CADs). Across several phases, psychometric characteristics of the VAHLT were examined and used to guide its development. An initial pool of 46 items was developed using input from patients, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. An initial patient sample (N = 532) was evaluated and used to inform item revisions. A revised 44-item pool was then evaluated using a second sample, the results of which aided in the selection of a final set of 30 items. The finalized 30-item VAHLT was then psychometrically evaluated using the second sample (N = 318). An item response theory approach was utilized to evaluate the VAHLT by assessing model fit, item parameter estimates, test and item information curves, and item characteristic curves. Reliability was assessed using ordinal coefficient alpha. We additionally assessed differential item functioning between asthma and COPD diagnoses. The VAHLT demonstrated a unidimensional structure and reasonably discriminated patients in the lower range of health literacy estimates. The tool demonstrated strong reliability (α = .920). Two of the 30 items were found to exhibit non-negligible differential item functioning. This study presents compelling evidence of validity in several areas for the VAHLT, including content and structural validity. Further external validation studies are needed and forthcoming. Overall, this work represents a strong first step towards a novel, skill-based, and disease-specific measure of CAD-related health literacy.

Objective: Pregnancy-specific anxiety (PSA) is a distinct construct from general anxiety and depression. The purpose of this study was to develop, evaluate, and validate the Pregnancy-Specific Anxiety Tool (PSAT), to measure PSA and its severity.Methods: The study was carried out in 2 stages. Stage 1 involved item development and content and face validation. Stage 2 included psychometric evaluation to examine item distributions and correlational structure, dimensionality, internal consistency reliability, stability, and construct, convergent, and criterion validity, using 2 independent samples (initial sample N = 494, May-October 2018; validation sample N = 325, July 2019-May 2020).Results: Eighty-two items were evaluated for face validity and 41 items were considered in stage 2 based on feedback from participants and experts. Model fit from exploratory factor analysis and patterns of item-factor loadings suggested a 6-factor model with 33 items. The 6 factors included items pertaining to health and well-being of the baby, labor and the pregnant person's well-being, postpartum, support, career and finance, and indicators of severity. Confirmatory factor analysis carried out using the initial sample showed good fit with the validation sample. The area under the curve (AUC) for the diagnosis of adjustment disorders (AD) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and for AD/any anxiety disorders, the AUC was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85).Conclusions: The PSAT can be useful for screening and monitoring of PSA, and pregnant people with scores higher than 10 should be considered for further assessment.

INTRODUCTION This study aims to assess the changes in cigarette consumption CO levels, and importance and self-confidence levels of quitting smoking in adult smokers after participation in a 6-month community-based smoking cessation program. METHODS Participants were enrolled in the intervention (counseling group) or noncounseling group after completing a baseline assessment and receiving educational materials. A final assessment was completed at 6 months and at 8 months. Mixed factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with 2 (condition: counseling vs non-counseling) × 2 (spoken language: Chinese vs English) × 2 (time: initial measurement vs last measurement) designs, were conducted for each of the four outcome measures. RESULTS Seventy smokers (50 males, 20 females; mean age 34 years, SD=9.68) from the Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking (n=30) and English-speaking (n=40) communities in Vancouver, Canada were enrolled. Cigarette consumption: Both Chinese- and English-speaking participants significantly decreased their cigarette consumption at near equal rates and English-speaking participants smoked significantly more cigarettes than the Chinese-speaking participants did across both the initial and last measurement time points. No significant interactions or main effects related to the study condition variable were observed. CO levels: Average levels of CO also decreased near equally for the English- and Chinese-speaking groups. No significant interactions or main effects related to the study condition variable were observed. Importance ratings: Chinese-speakers in the non-counseling group showed no increase in importance ratings, whereas Chinese-speakers in the counseling group saw an average increase of 0.73 (SD=1.10). For the English-speaking group, importance ratings remained stable over time with no significant changes. Self-confidence ratings: A larger average rating increase for the counseling group compared to the non-counseling group was observed for the study condition and time variables. On average, confidence ratings increased significantly for the whole sample. CONCLUSIONS Our study showed that participation in a community-based smoking cessation intervention study, regardless of study group, resulted in significant decreases over time in self-reported cigarettes smoked per day and measured CO levels; as well as a significant effect on importance ratings depending on the language group, and a significant increase in confidence ratings overall.

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-Lexical Rating Scale (CAPP-LRS) is a self-report instrument designed to index psychopathy according to the CAPP psychopathy framework. Developed with the expressed goal of advancing the state of knowledge regarding the specific features of psychopathy, the CAPP model and associated instruments have garnered increasing attention and support in the field. Despite the conceptual strength of the CAPP model, the advanced lexical structure of its primary research tool (the CAPP-LRS) has led researchers to question the utility of the instrument for use with some populations of interest (e.g., forensic/correctional and adolescent/young adult samples). The aim of the present work was to address this issue by creating a lexically simplified, though functionally equivalent, version of the CAPP-LRS to increase accessibility to critically relevant populations. A set of two studies (N = 602) describes the adaptation protocol and the initial validation of the modified instrument.

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) is a recently developed conceptual model of psychopathy designed to index the disorder across 33 personality traits. Although recent research has evidenced support for the CAPP model with respect to the convergent, criterion, and predictive validity of CAPP instruments, little work has examined the optimal internal structure and generalizability of the model and associated measures. The present study sought to elaborate on the construct validity and psychometric properties of the CAPP Lexical Self Rating Scale and determine the utility of the instrument across men and women, and individuals of Caucasian and East Asian descent. Within a large sample of self-identified offenders ( N = 1,414), we found strong support for a three-factor model comprising domains reflecting interpersonal dominance, behavioral disinhibition, and deficient emotional attachment. Analyses examining the generalizability of the model provide further insight into its applicability for diverse populations.

There is currently no comprehensive tool to assess the functional health literacy (HL) skills of chronic airway disease (CAD) patients. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of a new HL measure, the Vancouver Airways Health Literacy Tool (VAHLT). The tool was developed through the following phases: (1) Tool conceptualization, consisting of: (A) a systematic review (SR), (B) focus group sessions with CAD patients to understand barriers and facilitators to CAD management, (C) a survey with key-informants to obtain strategies to mitigate self-management barriers and validate patient-derived topics, and (D) respiratory physicians’ review of the topics; (2) Scenario and item development; and (3) Tool testing and content validation. The SR identified the lack of a valid HL measurement tool for CAD patients. Patients provided an initial shortlist of disease-related self-care topics. Key-informants helped to finalize topics for inclusion. Respiratory physicians and patients contributed to the development of a scenario-based questionnaire, which was refined during three rounds of testing to develop a 44-item instrument comprising nine self-management passages. We highlight the holistic process of integrating information from the literature with knowledge gained from key stakeholders into our tool framework. Our approach to stakeholder engagement may be of interest to researchers developing similar tools, and could facilitate the development and testing of HL-based interventions to ultimately improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden on the healthcare system.

As meta-analytic studies have come to occupy a sizable contingent of published work in the psychological sciences, clarity in the research and reporting practices of such work is crucial to the interpretability and reproducibility of research findings. The present study examines the state of research and reporting practices within a random sample of 384 published psychological meta-analyses across several important dimensions (e.g., search methods, exclusion criteria, statistical techniques). In addition, we surveyed the first authors of the meta-analyses in our sample to ask them directly about the research practices employed and reporting decisions made in their studies, including the assessments and procedures they conducted and the guidelines or materials they relied on. Upon cross-validating the first author responses with what was reported in their published meta-analyses, we identified numerous potential gaps in reporting and research practices. In addition to providing a survey of recent reporting practices, our findings suggest that (a) there are several research practices conducted by meta-analysts that are ultimately not reported; (b) some aspects of meta-analysis research appear to be conducted at disappointingly low rates; and (c) the adoption of the reporting standards, including the Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards (MARS), has been slow to nonexistent within psychological meta-analytic research.

As meta-analytic research has come to occupy a sizeable contingent of published work in the psychological sciences, clarity in the reporting of such work is crucial to its interpretability and reproducibility. This is especially true regarding the assessment of primary study quality, as notions of study quality can vary across research domains. The present study examines the general state of reporting practices related to primary study quality in a sample of 382 published psychological meta-analyses, as well as the reporting decisions and motivations of the authors that published them. Our findings suggest adherence to reporting standards has remained poor for assessments of primary study quality and that the discipline remains inconsistent in its reporting practices generally. We discuss several potential reasons for the poor adherence to reporting standards in our sample, including whether quality assessments are being conducted in the first place, whether standards are well-known within the discipline, and the potential conflation of assessing primary study quality with other facets of conducting a meta-analysis. The implications of suboptimal reporting practices related to primary study quality are discussed.

When conducting meta-analyses, researchers must make decisions about which statistical model is most appropriate for the specific context and aims of the meta-analysis. Although there are several meta-analysis models, most researchers choose between two general models: fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects (RE). Yet, the basis on which these two general models are distinguished and of when it is appropriate to use one or the other varies in the methodological literature. Although model-to-inference inconsistencies have been previously noted, there has been little empirical investigation of whether, and to what extent, the varying conceptualizations of the distinctions between FE and RE models are reflected in published meta-analyses. The present study explores whether conceptualizations of model distinctions among psychological researchers are consistent with those in the methods literature. We also examine model choices and rationales given by psychological researchers in two samples of published meta-analyses in psychology-related journals. We identify four primary categories for distinguishing between FE and RE models, only two of which were predominant in our samples. Although model choice appears to be reported at a moderately high rate, many researchers continue not to provide explicit rationales for their model choices or do not clearly tie model choices to the specific research aims of the meta-analyses. Implications of these findings are discussed.