26.10.2014 Views

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

This approach is variously identified as “difference-score,” “gain-score,” or<br />

“change-score” analysis. In conventional usage a pretest is given, a treatment<br />

administered, and a posttest given. The two scores are compared, presuming that<br />

differences in test scores are a function of the treatment. Various forms of change<br />

analysis are widely used in teaching, counseling, and training to make assessments of<br />

performance.<br />

Change-score analysis has been variously criticized, and its utility as a valid basis<br />

for inference has been rejected by some researchers. The objections are mainly<br />

statistical, having to do with the unreliability of such scores. In addition, it is not clear<br />

that the change is due to the treatment (or behavior of the party being evaluated).<br />

CONSIDERATIONS<br />

Some of the approaches discussed here suggest useful ways of making judgments<br />

descriptive and, therefore, more effective. Change scores do provide descriptive<br />

judgments, but they are sufficiently weak as a basis for judgment that their value in<br />

appraising performance is minimized. Particular applications may occur, such as the<br />

shaping of desired behavior; but equating “good” merely with “better” is not likely to be<br />

helpful. Content-referenced appraisal has the limitations already suggested.<br />

However, both norm- and criterion-referenced judgments offer more promising<br />

application in the context described here. With the former it is important that the<br />

reference parties and the measures used be agreed on prior to behavior. With the latter it<br />

is important that the criterion be acceptable prior to behavior. In both cases the parties<br />

involved are merely defining “good” before the fact—an essential factor in evaluating<br />

what “good” is.<br />

REFERENCES<br />

American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC:<br />

Author.<br />

Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. New York: Grove.<br />

Filley, A.C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.<br />

Hanson, P.G. (1975). Giving feedback: An interpersonal skill. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1975<br />

annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.<br />

Harris, T. (1969). I’m OK, you’re OK. New York: Harper & Row.<br />

Pfeiffer, J.W., & Jones, J.E. (1972). Openness, collusion and feedback. In J.W. Pfeiffer & J.E. Jones (Eds.), The<br />

1972 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.<br />

194 ❘❚<br />

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!