Ambiguous Measures of Unknown Constructs: The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (aka Symptom Validity Scale, FBS, FBS-r)

The Fake Bad Scale (FBS; Symptom Validity Scale) has fundamental psychometric flaws, interpretive problems, and potentially adverse societal consequences that are not appreciated by Ben-Porath et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 2(1), 62–85, 2009a, b). The FBS was constructed without due consideration to scientifically based guidelines for scale development (Clark and Watson, Psychological Assessment 7, 309–319, 1995; Jackson, Psychological Review 78, 229–248, 1971; Nunnally 1978; Holden and Troister, Canadian Psychology 50, 120–130, 2009). After almost two decades in existence, its face, content, and construct validity have not been established in the empirical literature. Oft-cited discriminant studies that appear to support the FBS are premature because of the scale’s unestablished psychometric foundation. In addition, these studies have significant methodological weaknesses that preclude definitive conclusions about what the scale actually measures. We review these weaknesses and recent legal cases that challenge the scale. We recommend that the FBS’s validity and fairness be addressed in an independent scientific review by the Buros Mental Measurement Test Evaluation System, a non-profit center specializing in the evaluation of commercially available tests.     

The Civil Servant as Legislator: Law Making in British Administration

How are government policy commitments converted into legislation and what happens in the conversion? The role of civil servants in preparing legislation is far more important than is generally assumed. By looking at the work of four recent bill  teams in Britain – teams of civil servants given the task of developing Acts of Parliament – their crucial roles in initiating policies, placing them on the political agenda (even helping secure their place in a party manifesto), developing them, making sure they pass through parliament and enacting them once they have reached the statute books are assessed. The article explores the composition and working methods of bill teams. These teams work with considerable autonomy in developing legislation, but it cannot be assumed that they operate outside ministerial control. Teams see themselves as reflecting the priorities of the government in general and their ministers in particular. Yet ministers typically know relatively little about the law they are bringing in until they receive the submissions and briefings from their officials. Perhaps the biggest danger for democracy is not a civil service putting forward proposals which a minister feels forced to accept, but rather that ministers do not notice or fully appreciate what is being proposed in their name despite having the political authority to change it and a civil service which bends over backwards to consult and accommodate them.     

The Drug Court as Postmodern Justice

The drug court is far more than a new version of the old drug-diversion idea. It is a fundamental embodiment of postmodern justice and represents a paradigm shift from criminal court practices. This article compares the drug court to the criminal court in terms of the dimensions of the modernism-postmodernism debate as specified in legal research and public policy scholarship. First, the courts are differentiated in terms of their worldviews, ideas on the nature of society, definitions of truth, and conceptions of the foundation of law. Next, the drug court and criminal court jurisprudence are juxtaposed. Specific dimensions include their collaborative versus adversarial systems and the individualized versus the due process framework. Finally, the two courts are considered in terms of their divergent visions of the drug user. Upon analysis, it appears that the two courts are in an intractable ideological disagreement framed by competing modern versus postmodern intellectual dispositions.     

The attack on national regulation: why we need a global framework for domestic regulation

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• In regulating cross-border capital markets transactions,regulators are employing either an exemptive approach, or aunilateral or mutual recognition approach. The exemptive approachallows market participants wherever located to transact businessin the host countries without complying with local requirements.The recognition approach is limited to a particular market,but is more expansive in terms of access to host country investors.In regulating cross-border transactions, the SEC has traditionallyrelied on the exemptive approach, and has restricted participationto only the largest, most sophisticated US investors. Recently,it has moved to a mutual recognition approach with its agreementwith Australia, which allows a broader range of US investorsto conduct cross-border transactions with Australian exchangesand broker–dealers relying almost entirely on the adequacyof the Australian regulatory system. However, both its exemptiveapproach and mutual recognition approach deal only with secondarymarket transactions, not participation in offerings.
• While. . . [Full Text of this Article]