The Ruff Neurobehavioral Inventory: Validity Indicators and Validity

This study examined the test validity of the respondent validity scales of the Ruff neurobehavioral inventory (RNBI). In a private practice sample of motor vehicle accident pain patients (n?=?54) without neurologic injury, the scores obtained for these scales were compared with and correlated with equivalent ones on the Millon clinical multi-axial inventory III (MCMI III) and the Detailed assessment of post-traumatic stress (DAPS). Results revealed that there was a consistent pattern of convergence and divergence in response styles across the three instruments. In terms of the RNBI interscale correlations, in particular, the results suggested that premorbid positive impression management and postmorbid negative impression management are related in this type of sample. These findings add to the concurrent validity of the RNBI, suggesting that the instrument provides relevant incremental information about the type of population studied. Limitations of the study and ideas for future research were discussed.     

Positivism,Legal Validity,and the Separation of Law and Morals

The essay discusses the import of the separability thesis both for legal positivism and for contemporary legal practice. First, the place of the separability thesis in legal positivism will be explored, distinguishing between “standard positivism” and “post‐Hartian positivism.” Then I will consider various kinds of relations between law and morality that are worthy of jurisprudential interest, and explore, from a positivist point of view, what kind of relations between law and morality must be rejected, what kind of such relations should be taken into account, and what kind of such relations are indeed of no import at all. The upshot of this analysis consists in highlighting the distinction between two different dimensions of legal validity (formal validity and material validity respectively), and in pointing out that the positivist separability thesis can apply to formal validity only. On the other hand, when the ascertainment of material validity is at stake, some form of moral reasoning may well be involved (here and now, it is necessarily involved). The essay concludes with some brief remarks on the persisting importance of the positivist jurisprudential project.     

Validity

Validity is the qualifying label of the norms in law and the acts executedin the name of the law, according to and by the force of which the norms andacts in question are recognized as the norms and the acts, respectively, ofthe existing legal system. This concept of validity, defining membership withinthe system,1 is simultaneously completed by a concept of validity that selectsand identifies the system itself. Accordingly, validity is also the qualifyinglabel of the system itself, according to and by the force of which the systemin question is recognized by the law and order of the international communityas one of the national legal systems.     

Moral Principles and Legal Validity

Two recent high‐quality articles, including one in this journal, have challenged the Inclusivist and Incorporationist varieties of legal positivism. David Lefkowitz and Michael Giudice, writing from perspectives heavily influenced by the work of Joseph Raz, have endeavored—in sophisticated and interestingly distinct ways—to vindicate Raz's contention that moral principles are never among the law‐validating criteria in any legal system nor among the laws that are applied as binding bases for adjudicative and administrative decisions in such a system. The present article responds to their defenses of Raz's Exclusive Legal Positivism.     

DSM-5 Neurocognitive Disorders: Validity, Reliability, Fairness, and Utility in Forensic Applications

A previously published paper (Schultz Psychological Injury and Law 3: 271–288, 2010) on forensic considerations regarding neurocognitive disorders within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) reviewed evidence for internal and external validity, as well as the fairness and utility of the proposed classification. Given recent publication of the DSM-5, in May 2013, the current paper provides an update on this review. It focuses on changes in the final version of the neurocognitive disorders section of the DSM-5 as compared with the earlier proposal in 2010 and raises a range of new conceptual, methodological, and clinical practice issues related to this classification. An examination of forensic neuropsychologists’ diagnostic choices and their associated pitfalls follows. Discussion extends to the unresolved issue of disorder threshold, associated risks of overdiagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder and underdiagnosis of major neurocognitive disorder, and the absence of a moderately severe disorder classification. Methodological concerns in diagnostic determinations, especially with DSM-5 Criteria A and B, issues associated with subtypes and specifiers, as well as functional assessments of activities of daily living, now embedded in the diagnosis, follow. Subtype omissions and methodological inconsistencies are highlighted.The vulnerability of neuropsychologists and psychiatrists during courtroom testimony on neurocognitive disorders-particularly with conceptual, methodological, and practical issues-will be addressed through clinical and forensic practice recommendations.     

Legal Validity, Acceptance of Law, Legitimacy. Some Critical Comments and Constructive Proposals

In this paper the author first presents a critical account of some basic views of Habermas' Discourse Philosophy. He points out some difficulties inherent in notions such as valid justification in argumentation theory, in the notion of ideal form of discourses, and in consensus theory of truth. Secondly, he focuses on Habermas' conceptions of validity, acceptance and legitimacy of law from the perspective of neo-institutionalism. In particular, (i) the author argues that Habermas' definition of legal validity is unclear and unrealistic; (ii) the author stresses the distinction between acceptance and acceptability; (iii) Habermas presupposes harmony between sovereignty and human rights postulates, but the present author takes into account the possibility of conflicts between autonomous popular decisions and human rights which must be resolved by methods of discursive democracy; (iv) criteria for acceptance of law cannot be fixed by a stipulative definition, but are in social discussion; (v) legitimacy is not an objective feature of valid law and presupposes an evaluation based on our political convictions.     

Comparing the Validity of Prospective,Retrospective, and Official Onset for Different Offending Categories

Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males, the main aim of this research is to compare the age of onset of six types of offenses according to different methods of measurement – prospective self-reports, retrospective self-reports, and official records – and also to explore self-reported and official onset sequences. Results showed that ages of onset reported in retrospective accounts generally tended to be higher than those reported prospectively. Agreement rates between prospective and retrospective accounts were lowest for minor forms of offending, and highest for more serious offenses such as theft of vehicles. Males with heavy substance use habits were less likely to report the same age of onset retrospectively compared with prospectively. Denial rates were substantial in all comparisons, particularly for minor forms of offending. Comparisons between self-reported and official measures of onset revealed that there was a greater degree of agreement between the two measures for serious offenses. Whereas self-reported onset sequences suggested that minor crimes were committed before more serious offenses, official onset sequences suggested the reverse. The findings show that retrospective reports are not suitable to address research questions requiring detailed information (i.e., most criminal career parameters: age of onset, frequency, age of termination, etc.), for studying minor forms of offending, and for samples of individuals with serious substance use habits. Furthermore, official measures of offending can also produce misleading results, particularly when studying minor forms of offending.     

论物权的排他效力与优先效力

物权排他效力与物权优先效力是各自独立的两种物权效力。物权排他效力是同一标的物上已成立的物权排斥同一内容的物权再行成立的效力 ,物权优先效力是指物权优先于债权的效力。     

预告登记的性质、效力和范围探索

本文针对预告登记中的权利性质、登记效力和登记范围提出意见。经预告登记后的请求权的本质属性仍为债权;预告登记后发生的中间处分行为应为效力待定的行为;可为预告登记的应是变动不动产物权的请求权,或者该请求权附有条件或期限,或者该不动产物权指向的物为未来的不动产,飞机、船舶、汽车等特殊动产准用不动产的规定。     

Studying Pretrial Publicity Effects: New Methods for Improving Ecological Validity and Testing External Validity

Although research examining the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) on individuals' appraisals of a defendant and verdict decision making generally has been found to be internally valid, the external validity has been questioned by some social scientists as well as lawyers and judges. It is often proposed that the verisimilitude (or ecological validity) of the research should be increased in the service of increasing external validity; however, increasing verisimilitude can be costly in terms of both time and money. It is proposed that the Internet is a viable means of conducting PTP research that allows high verisimilitude without high costs. This is demonstrated with a study in which we used the Internet to examine PTP effects in an actual trial as it was taking place. Successful use of the Internet to conduct experimental research in other areas of psychology and law is discussed, as well as the importance of future research examining whether independent variables interact with methods in ways that undermine the generalizability of research findings.     

MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-Restructured Form Validity Scales: Complementary Approaches to Evaluate Response Validity

Responsible forensic assessment is dependent on an appreciation for how validity scales differ from one another and function across different evaluation contexts. The primary goal of this review is to evaluate whether there is sufficient empirical support to provide expert testimony using MMPI-2 or MMPI-2-RF validity scales. Towards this goal, we briefly describe the development of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales and review empirical studies that support interpretative strategies. We describe and illustrate with case examples how the respective sets of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales utilize complementary strategies to detect over- and under-reporting of psychological, cognitive, and physical symptoms. Additionally, the review describes standards for expert psychological testimony and illustrates how MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales are particularly well suited to assess symptom validity and psychological status in secondary-gain settings.     

论合同的效力

我国<合同法>以专章规范了合同的效力,学界研究也日益活跃,然而众说纷纭,至今未能统一认识.本文从合同法理论及立法本旨出发,分别就合同的成立、合同的有效及合同的生效三个方面进行探讨,旨在揭示它们之间的内在联系与制度价值,以期对在合同效力问题上存在的模糊认识予以澄清.     

Development of a Validity Scale for the Dissociative Experience Scale-Revised: Atypicality,Structure, and Inconsistency

Psychological Injury and Law - The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), the most commonly used scale for assessing dissociation across settings, lacks a validity scale. In this study, six methods...     

Resource Material for Ethical Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity,Including Malingering

The present paper offers resource material for evaluation of malingering, response bias, and symptom and performance validity. The material mostly consists of noncontroversial, paraphrased excerpts from relevant consensus statements, guidelines, codes, books, and articles. The five principles of the American Psychological Association (APA) ethics code were used to integrate the material. In addition, five other principles were needed (e.g., on science). The companion article on a new consensus statement on the ethical use of symptom and performance validity written for the Association for Psychological Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL) in the journal Psychological Injury and Law (PIL; Bush, Ruff, & Heibronner, 2014) was instigated by and written partly based on the resources described in the present paper. The resources offered in the present paper are divided into the following sections: I. Malingering; II. Related Terms; III. APA Ethics Code; IV. Other Ethics Guidelines; V. Practice Guidelines; VI. Assessment Guidelines; VII. Other Ethical Sources; IX. Biases, Fallacies, Errors; X. Prior SVT-M/PVT-M Statements; XI. A New Ethical Model of Ten Principles; and XII. Instrumentation, and followed by Conclusions. The ten principles of the present ethical guidelines could be used to help revise the APA ethics code. The companion statement constitutes a major advance in the field and the present resource material facilitates its use.     

Validity and Defeasibility in the Legal Domain

In jurisprudential literature, the adjective ‘defeasible’ appears as a predicate of many terms: concepts, laws, rules, reasoning, justification, proof, and so on. In this paper, we analyze the effects of some versions of the thesis of the defeasibility of legal norms on the reconstruction of the notion of legal validity. We analyze some possible justifications of this thesis considered as a claim concerning validity, and enquire into two possible sets of problems related to the defeasibility of the criteria of identification of a legal system. We also provide a formalization of some options regarding defeasible criteria of identification, which can be used as a tool for meta-jurisprudential analysis. Finally, the thesis according to which defeasibility is better conceived of as a feature of legal application is examined and questioned.     

诉讼契约的生效与救济

私法性质诉讼契约之生效需具备实体上有关要件,诉讼性质诉讼契约之生效需具备一定的诉讼法上之要件.诉讼契约在达成过程中存在瑕疵时,对于私法性质诉讼契约依据实体上有关规定予以救济,对于诉讼性质诉讼契约依照诉讼行为瑕疵救济的方式予以救济.基于当事人诉讼上的抗辩,对于诉讼性质诉讼契约之违反,法院依照双方约定的有关程序继续进行或者对双方约定的诉讼行为直接予以认可;对于私法性质诉讼契约之违反,法院在审查双方关于实体部分的合意是否合理履行基础上判定该违反行为是否有效.     

家事协议的效力与认定

家事协议是由具备家事行为能力的家庭成员就家庭生活重要事项协商一致达成的约束所有家庭成员之协议。具体司法裁判中，家事协议效力应基于其与法律之多重博弈关系，通过考量司法政策取向、司法能力及其系统性影响等因素来认定和择取案件最佳裁判路径与效果。     

On the Robustness and Validity of Groups

In response to Nagin's comment on our paper, Methodological Sensitivities to Latent Class Analysis of Long-Term Criminal Trajectories, we reconsider the robustness and validity of group-based approaches to criminal trajectories and introduce additional issues for future research. We emphasize the limitations of typological approaches and the dangers of reifying the idea of distinct offender groupings for research and policy. We also clarify misunderstandings about the use of hierarchical linear models for studying trajectories of crime. Our basic conclusion is that methods in criminology need to be more tightly linked with theory.