Do we know what’s objective by studying projected content from the collective unconscious like mythology or alchemy?
I'm validating an assessment and to gather validity evidence based on test content I planned to describe the process of development because I can't access to experts who judge the content of the test.
What criteria should I use to approach the development of the test in order to analyse if the content of the test has evidence behind it to support the intended uses?.
Sorry if I can't explain myself very good, not an English native speaker.
Good day! I hope this message finds you well. I am a psychology student in the midst of completing my test development requirement under the Psychological Assessment subject. I was wondering if there are people here, professionals or psychology graduates, to whom I can reach out to for help as I need 10 people who can rate whether or not the items for the test I have developed are necessary in order for me to assess the content validity. Your support is highly appreciated. Thank you!
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck
There goes iOS spoofing more than likely.
I found interesting data published on LSAC's website - they surveyed Law School faculty asking them to identify specific skills important for success in 1L and beyond.
This answers the question behind "Why you are studying for the LSAT? "
This report maps these skills/tasks back to the LSAT. For example, the Logical Reasoning section incorporates:
- Applying a statute to new facts
- Identify the key facts in a case
- Identifying the statute operating in a case
All "Highly Important" reported skills for succeeding in Law School.
TLDR: It is worth reading the report. Everyone will find something interesting in there.
The title really, this should get removed for being common sense, but it's not. This is mainly to stop people looking foolish on social media, although it also works face-to-face. It also stems the flow of completely spurious facts being repeated as truth. If you think something sounds too neat or too controversial, there's probably another side to it.
I'm not saying just trust Snopes implicitly, but there is an agenda behind everything posted on the internet.
Example: a friend on Facebook posts a "news article" about the supposed epidemic of Muslim paedophile gangs in certain English cities. The only source cited in Britain First. This particular organisation practises it's own brand of far-right nationalism, and that should be weighed against the validity of their articles. If you can't find a report in at least one other reputable publication, probably not true.
Example 2: a friend tells you Black Friday started when slaves were sold off at reduced prices after Thanksgiving. This "fact" only surfaces after 2014, a while after open slave markets in the developed world are even a thing.
Believe me I like discussing politics as much as the next guy/gal but how come almost nobody in the comments sections sources their arguments with links or bibliography? It would greatly improve upon our community's discussions! Thanks
I’ve been getting confused between both. May anyone please give me an example of one or each? Thank you.
Whenever I see a news article that is sourced from RT, the majority of redditors immediately dismiss it as Russian propaganda meant to sow discord or create division. But what I would hope people do is investigate the claims via other sources before making up their minds as to whether it is simple propaganda. And if the claims are true, then reacting with anger and hostility towards the source should not be the reaction. Rather steps should be taken by the public to rectify any issue that would be a point of embarrassment or criticism.
Personally, I don't think it can. Jinx is kinda still going, albeit slowly and painfully. Fine Bros weren't really exclusively targeted by edups and have survived. Keemstar recovered after a year. Leafy did die, but YouTube themselves kinda did that. Tana apologized and so appeased the rabid 12 year-olds who let her survive. RiceGum had no damage what-so-ever, except in reputation, but that was already out the window. HowToPrankItUp was really the only one killed by the Content Cop, but even then he was one of the millions of carbon copy prank channels that were destined to die.
We are designing a new scale to be used in healthcare and 14 experts involved in rating the items in order to calculate content the validity ratios (CVR) for each item and the average content validity index (CVIavg) of the one dimension scale. We omitted some items that had low CVR (>0.51) according to Lawshe’s original paper (DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x) and we had a 0.75 CVIavg as a result. We had stumbled upon some contradicting views on the relevance of CVIavg or its acceptable values. If it is an unacceptable value, what is the next step we should take? Should we omit some more items? Ignore average CVI altogether? Thanks.
can one pretty much dismiss things like this in the realm of fake?
I was just taking a look at it and after noticing several missed boxes and seeing all the "Anonymous edits" I'm starting to wonder if I can rely on much of anything that it says - not to be pessimistic or anything but it doesn't seem like anyone is maintaining it or moderating the edits. For the safety of everyone's skin and whatnot, I don't want someone to use a sunscreen they think is a PPD of 20 when in reality its obviously something like 8, you know? (Especially for people who are on medications/retnoids that make them extremely sun sensitive)
Most folks just watch the official release of a film, I'm guessing. It's pretty straightforward, barring some which have Directors Cuts, or Extended/Uncut/Unrated versions. Rarely are there films like Blade Runner which have half a dozen or more versions to choose from, some vastly different. But for the most part I think we can agree that there's usually a "definitive" version of a film which sits the closest to the creator's artistic intent.
Enter fan-edits and clean versions. These alter a film to fit a different artistic vision, the latter specifically to remove "objectionable content" such as profanity, sex, graphic violence, etc.
Yesterday, my mother-in-law encouraged my wife and I to borrow some of her "Clean Flicks" DVDs (even though I'm sure that particular company is now out of business). This annoyed me greatly, as I feel such editing is an affront to the artist's vision, a mutilation of someone's efforts, often illegally with no compensation to the creators. Incidentally, I'm also of the mindset that if a film offends me then it's my obligation to either turn it off or deal with it, and not to impose my own morals on others.
Not ten minutes later, I realized I'm a hypocrite.
Because I also enjoy fan edits of many films (incidentally I also enjoy mashups). There's a fan version of Full Metal Jacket that intercuts both halves of the film, the boot camp scenes serving as "flashbacks" between during the Vietnam scenes. It makes the film infinitely more watchable to me. Another edit that removes the cheese and silliness from Doom. Dozens of revamps of the Star Wars prequels, mostly to remove Jar-Jar. A recut of Lord of the Rings to match the films closer to the books. I've enjoyed all these and more significantly, often completely turning around my opinion of certain films.
And yet, every argument I have against clean edits applies to fan edits. Without fail.
My purpose in making this topic is two-fold: First, I'd like to get some other points of view on the validity of fan edits and clean edits. Is either acceptable? Does one have more value than the other? Second, I'd like some advice on how I might to resolve this cognitive dissonance if possible, or if it's even something I should be worried about.
It's in the KA notes, but I'm not really seeing the difference.
We are designing a new scale to be used in healthcare and 14 experts involved in rating items in order to calculate content validity ratios for each item and content validity index of the one dimension scale. We omitted some items that had low CVR (>0.51) according to Lawshe’s original paper (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x) and we had a 0.75 CVIave. Is it low? What is the next step we should take? Should we omit some more items? Ignore average CVI altogether? Thanks.
