Search results

Violence is elevated in older adolescents and adults with schizophrenia; however, little is known about younger children. This report focuses on rates of violence in younger children with schizophrenic-spectrum illnesses. A retrospective review of structured diagnostic interviews from a case series of 81 children, ages 4-15 years of age, with childhood onset of schizophrenic-spectrum illness is reported. Seventy-two percent of children had a history of violent behavior, including 25 children (31%) with a history of severe violence. Of those with a history of violence, 60% had a least one episode of violence that did not appear to be in response to an external stimulus (internally driven violence). There was no significant impact of age or gender. For many children, these internally driven violent episodes were rare and unpredictable, but severe. Similar to what is found in adolescents and adults, violence is common in children with schizophrenic-spectrum illnesses. General violence prevention strategies combined with early identification and treatment of childhood psychotic illnesses may decrease the morbidity associated with childhood psychotic violence.

It is unclear whether information obtained from a one parent can be used to infer the other parent's history of psychopathology. Two hundred and one parental dyads were asked to complete psychiatric interviews. Based on maternal report, non-participating husbands/ fathers had higher rates than participating fathers of psychiatric illness. For fathers who did participate, maternal report did not match direct interview of paternal psychopathology with sensitivities less than 0.40 and positive predictive values of 0.33 to 0.74. Psychopa -thology may be over-represented among fathers who do not participate in research. Mother report of paternal symptoms is not an effective proxy. Alternative methods need to be developed to: i) improve father participation or ii) identify psychiatric status in fathers who do not participate in research projects.

Childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS) refers to schizophrenia with onset of psychotic symptoms prior to a child's 13th birthday. Optimal treatment likely includes family-based services supplementing antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. However, family-based services can require adjustment based on parental psychopathology; there has been little literature exploring the frequency or type of psychopathology seen in parents of COS cases. This report includes the results of a structured psychiatric evaluation on 80 parents of a COS case with comparison to a sample of 304 parents. Having a child with psychosis and being of minority racial/ethnicity status increased risk for psychiatric illness. Psychotic disorders (15% vs. 5%), mood disorders (54% vs. 27%), anxiety disorders (30% vs. 18%), and substance use disorders (49% vs. 31%) were all increased in the parents with a psychotic child. Psychiatric illness is common in parents of a child with COS and will need to be considered as family-based services for COS are developed.

Understanding parental psychopathology interaction is important in preventing negative family outcomes. This study investigated the effect of paternal psychiatric history on maternal depressive symptom trajectory from birth to 12 months postpartum. Maternal Edinburgh Postpartum Depression screens were collected at 1, 6 and 12 months and fathers' psychiatric diagnoses were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV from 64 families. There was not a significant difference in the trajectory of maternal depressive symptoms between mothers with partners with history of or a current psychiatric condition or those without a condition. However, mothers with partners with substance abuse history had higher levels of depressive symptoms relative to those affected by mood/anxiety disorders or those without a disorder. Our results call for a closer look at paternal history of substance abuse when treating postpartum maternal depression.

This paper discusses the impact of a social desirability (SD) bias in cross‐cultural ethics research. An SD bias may mask a relationship between key variables, provide a false correlation between them, moderate their relationship, or influence the response rate to the survey instrument. When survey researchers present hypothetical ethical dilemmas to respondents and ask them what they would do, the respondents' answers will not only be influenced by their actual values and desires, but also by what those individuals perceive to be desirable within their society. We argue that key value differences between countries, as noted by Hofstede, will exert an independent influence on responses to self‐report questionnaires. Four propositions are set forth detailing how this SD bias may differentially affect responses to ethics surveys across cultures. A longitudinal research design is proposed to help disentangle the impact of culture values, personal values, and an SD bias. Several measures to prevent and to control the bias in cross‐cultural ethics research are discussed The use of pretests, pilot tests, and SD scales imbedded within research instruments is recommended.

This paper examines the relationship between personality characteristics - as indexed by the ICES Personality Inventory (Bartram, 1994; 1998) and the IBS Clinical Inventory (Mauger, Adkinson, Zoss, Firestone & Hook, 1980) - and bullying behavior. Although it proved to be difficult to obtain a large enough sample of bullies, the findings indicated that bullies are aggressive, hostile, and extraverted and independent. Furthermore, bullies are egocentric, selfish, and show little concern for the opinions of others. High levels of aggressiveness, assertiveness, competitiveness and independence are traits that are also associated with leadership.

Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.