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.     

Project USA: American competitiveness and what must be done to restore it

The United States today faces a loss of influence as a world power, a reduction in American independence as a policymaker, and a decline in the standard of living on which Americans have come to depend. History teaches that nations weaker and less productive than the United States can rise to become economic powerhouses and rapidly increase their standards of living. History also teaches that nations failing to recognize their fundamental problems will inevitably decline. American politicians must face what is abundantly clear: the United States is losing ground and must act quickly to reverse its course. This White Paper outlines what must be done. Information about the nation's current status must be analyzed and communicated. Incentives to improve the level of competence in government must be provided and maintained. The emphasis of government policy must be changed to reflect broad economic and technological interests as opposed to special interests. Savings must be encouraged and increased. Infrastructure must be improved Tax laws must be modified to help bring these changes about. Economic and technological issues must be elevated to the importance they require. American thinking must reflect the new realities: that the age of leadership through military power is over, that the requirements for success in the world of the 1990s and beyond require a sound and growing economy that is internationally competitive. The US can accomplish these goals only through foundation-shaking, comprehensive, fundamental changealong the lines we propose herein.This paper is the executive summary (with minor editing modifications) of a white paper that is available from Cornell University's Johnson Graduate School of Management.     

Defining risk

Risk is the focal topic in the management of many activities and technologies. For that management to be successful, an explicit and accepted definition of the term risk is essential. Creation of that definition is a political act, expressing the definers' values regarding the relative importance of different possible adverse consequences for a particular decision. Those values, and with them the definition of risk, can change with changes in the decisionmaker, the technologies considered, or the decision problem. After a review of the sources of controversy in defining risk, a general framework is developed, showing how these value issues can be systematically addressed. As an example, the approach is applied to characterizing the risks of six competing energy technologies, the relative riskeness of which depends upon the particular definition used.     

The relation between technology import and domestic R&D

The relation between domestic R&D and imports of technology is examined for 10 countries. Simple regressions revealed strong complementarity for each of the countries. Multiple regressions including GNP per capita and number of scientists and engineers were performed for the five countries with time series for all the variables. Strong complementarity was found between technology imports and domestic R&D and other variables for Japan and South Korea, weak for France, none for Germany and the US. Excluding government-financed R&D in the US resulted in a substitutive relation. Japan revealed a sharp decline in the ratio of technology payments to R&D spending; Korea is following in its steps. Complementarity appears to weaken in later stages as technology development strategies shift from dependent to imitative to autonomous or offensive technology development.