At 11:03 AM -0600 2/28/01, Timmerman, Thomas wrote:
>This is starting to sound like Dr. Laura's complaints
>against the child sexual abuse article:
>"Those studies of child sexual abuse and self-esteem
>are meaningless because they're based on self-reports!"
>Uhhhh....how else do you measure self-esteem?
If the only way in which you can assess self-esteem (I'm reluctant to use
the term 'measure' since it is a construct, not an entity) is through self
reports, and you cannot validate those self reports through other measures,
then the construct is not useful.
>
>> Again, a lot of reliance on self report without direct validation.
>> We do not _know_, in fact, what the effect of pledging is on
>> the subjects'
>> future behaviors.
>
>So, in order to evaluate the effect of pledging, self-reports
>are meaningless and we need "direct validation."
>I think you mentioned random physical exams in another post.
>Might work for females, but what about males? And how will
>we obtain truly random physical exams?
>I don't think it's likely that such direct validation will
>ever happen (if it's even possible).
Again, you're doing a nice job of identifying the weakness in the construct.
This hardly validates it's use.
>Since self-reports are meaningless I guess we're stuck with no
>evidence either way; and without evidence we go back to screaming
>arguments based on religious/political/emotional beliefs.
You may scream if you wish; I'll simply wait until we have good evidence
before accepting the assertion that a given program is effective.
If your program does not define its goals in a way that can be tested, then
its effectiveness cannot be demonstrated.
No amount of wishful thinking will change this.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
