Geocentric Gestures as a Research Tool

This study1 is part of a large-scale cross-cultural research project on the development of spatial language and cognition, in India, Indonesia and Nepal, that focuses on a culturally particular way of organizing small-scale, table space, using a large-scale geocentric spatial orientation system (Dasen & Mishra, in preparation). One of the main questions is at what age this geocentric frame of reference starts to be effective. The study of language development does not provide a clear answer, because young children (ages 4 to 7) use ambiguous “deictic” descriptions, i.e., they just say “this way” accompanied by a gesture. Can these gestures be used to clarify the meaning of language? To answer this question, 234 video recordings of Nepalese children performing the “Perspectives” task (in which they have to describe the location of three objects placed on a table in front of them, under three different conditions) were analyzed separately for both language and gestures. The results show a good correspondence between language and gestures in 9 to 12 year olds. This allows us to interpret further the frame of reference used by the younger children. Out of 367 items on which young children (4 to 9 years) give an ambiguous deictic answer, only 17% are accompanied with an egocentric gesture, and 83% with a geocentric one (combining 48% large gestures linked to the use of cardinal directions, and 35% medium-large gestures linked to the use of situational local landmarks). This shows that a geocentric frame is at play as early as age 4, even when the child cannot express it clearly in the language

When I Say … Self

Reflecting on the "self" component of "the inevitable triad" around which this issue is built, the authors offer definitional considerations to consider the term's practical implications

Do students’ personality traits change during medical training? A longitudinal cohort study

Many medical schools incorporate assessments of personal characteristics, including personality traits, in their selection process. However, little is known about whether changes in personality traits during medical training affect the predictive validity of personality assessments. The present study addressed this issue by examining the stability of personality traits and their predictive validity over a 6-year medical training course. Participants were two cohorts of Swiss medical students (N = 272, 72% of students admitted to Year 2) from whom we collected demographic data, Swiss medical studies aptitude test (EMS) scores, Big Five personality traits scores measured at three times and scores on the multiple-choice and objective structured clinical examination parts of the final medical examination. Our findings indicated that personality traits had medium-to-high rank-order stability ( r &gt; .60 over 3 years and r &gt; .50 over 6 years). Mean-level changes were moderate for agreeableness ( d = + 0.72) and small for neuroticism and conscientiousness ( d = -0.29, d = -0.25, respectively). Individual reliable change indices ranged from 4.5% for openness to 23.8% for neuroticism. The predictive validity was similar to that of the first three years of follow-up. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate changes in personality across undergraduate curriculum. Medical students’ personality traits were mostly stable across medical school and retain their predictive validity. Consequently, this study supports the use of tools measuring constructs underlying personality traits in selection. In addition, this study confirms that examination formats could favor students with certain personality traits.</p

Personal profile of medical students selected through a knowledge-based exam only: are we missing suitable students?

Introduction A consistent body of literature highlights the importance of a broader approach to select medical school candidates both assessing cognitive capacity and individual characteristics. However, selection in a great number of medical schools worldwide is still based on knowledge exams, a procedure that might neglect students with needed personal characteristics for future medical practice. We investigated whether the personal profile of students selected through a knowledge-based exam differed from those not selected. Methods Students applying for medical school (N=311) completed questionnaires assessing motivations for becoming a doctor, learning approaches, personality traits, empathy, and coping styles. Selection was based on the results of MCQ tests. Principal component analysis was used to draw a profile of the students. Differences between selected and non-selected students were examined by Multivariate ANOVAs, and their impact on selection by logistic regression analysis. Results Students demonstrating a profile of diligence with higher conscientiousness, deep learning approach, and task-focused coping were more frequently selected (p=0.01). Other personal characteristics such as motivation, sociability, and empathy did not significantly differ, comparing selected and non-selected students. Conclusion Selection through a knowledge-based exam privileged diligent students. It did neither advantage nor preclude candidates with a more humane profile

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

The use of instruments measuring protective factors is on the rise in risk evaluation, management, and treatment planning. Although assessment tools must have good internal validity to be generalizable and reproducible, little is known about the internal validity of protective factor instruments. The present study evaluated the factor structure of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) via confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of forensic risk assessments of 143 individuals convicted of violent and sexual violent offenses in Switzerland. The SAPROF did not show any differences by type of offenses. Although our confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm the classic SAPROF scale's structure, the results of the exploratory analysis were in line with previous theoretical research as it revealed a four-factor model comprising Resilience, Reintegration, Treatability, and Living Conditions. These results have implications for the use of the SAPROF in forensic risk assessments and treatment management plans