Scales for perceived risk of student-on-student victimization in grades 7 through 10: A psychometric analysis of the adolescent index on school safety

Although past research has developed scales for the incidence, prevalence, and fear of student-on-student victimization (SSV), little is known about the scaling of perceived risk (i.e., the cognitive appraisal of the chances of experiencing SSV). Hence, this study examined self-report survey data for the perceived risk of SSV as measured in the Adolescent Index for School Safety (AISS). Children in grades 7 through 10 (n=337) in a single Florida public school completed the AISS. Factor analyses using Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Oblimin Rotation identified nine unique factors for perceived risk. Reliability analyses found standardized Cronbach Alphas that ranged from .64 to .91, and seven out of the nine identified scales were above .80, which suggested good to excellent internal consistency. Future research should examine the content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity for the AISS and other self-report surveys of SSV dynamics. This publication was made possible by a grant [#97-MU-FX-KO12 (S-l)] from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (O.J.J.D.P.), United States Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.). This grant is administered through the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence at George Washington University. This specific study was developed and implemented by staff at: 1) East Carolina University’s Department of Criminal Justice; and 2) Florida State University’s Center for Educational Research and Policy Studies. All points of view and opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of East Carolina University, Florida State University, the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence, the O.J.J.D.P., or the U.S.D.OJ. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Bill Doerner and Jennifer Jolley for their support, editorial feedback, and insightful comments regarding earlier drafts of this paper.     

Forensic psychiatry and malpractice

This paper concerning the last 87 malpractice cases referred to the Department of Psychiatry and Law, Menninger Clinic, includes 57 suits against mental health practitioners and/or institutions, and 30 nonpsychiatric suits against general hospitals, surgeons, obstetricians, etc. A patient was available for interview in only 12 percent of the psychiatric cases; in 88 percent we reviewed medical records and consulted with attorneys. In the psychiatric cases the crucial question was whether a generally accepted standard of care was breached. The inherent problems of applying appropriate criteria to standards of care by practitioners and institutions are discussed. In half the psychiatric cases we found no significant deviation from acceptable clinical performance; in half we concluded that negligent practice had occurred. We did see a litigant for evaluation in 90 percent of the nonpsychiatric cases. The main issue involving them concerned harm or disability related to presumed negligence by medical personnel. How we evaluate such cases and apply disability criteria is discussed.     

Survey of gunshot residue analysis in forensic science laboratories

The purpose of this survey was to determine the methods of analysis being used on gunshot residue (GSR) samples in forensic science laboratories across the United States. In addition, the two general techniques of GSR analysis are compared and contrasted. Problems encountered by analysts using scanning electron microscopy/energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDX) are discussed.     

Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.