Gary G. Ford

Bio: Gary G. Ford is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Code of conduct. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 4325 citations.

Psychological Testing and Psychological Assessment: A Review of Evidence and Issues.

Abstract: This article summarizes evidence and issues associated with psychological assessment. Data from more than 125 meta-analyses on test validity and 800 samples examining multimethod assessment suggest 4 general conclusions: (a) Psychological test validity is strong and compelling, (b) psychological test validity is comparable to medical test validity, (c) distinct assessment methods provide unique sources of information, and (d) clinicians who rely exclusively on interviews are prone to incomplete understandings. Following principles for optimal nomothetic research, the authors suggest that a multimethod assessment battery provides a structured means for skilled clinicians to maximize the validity of individualized assessments. Future investigations should move beyond an examination of test scales to focus more on the role of psychologists who use tests as helpful tools to furnish patients and referral sources with professional consultation.

Psychological research online: report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet.

Abstract: As the Internet has changed communication, commerce, and the distribution of information, so too it is changing psychological research. Psychologists can observe new or rare phenomena online and can do research on traditional psychological topics more efficiently, enabling them to expand the scale and scope of their research. Yet these opportunities entail risk both to research quality and to human subjects. Internet research is inherently no more risky than traditional observational, survey, or experimental methods. Yet the risks and safeguards against them will differ from those characterizing traditional research and will themselves change over time. This article describes some benefits and challenges of conducting psychological research via the Internet and offers recommendations to both researchers and institutional review boards for dealing with them. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers

Abstract: Rationale: Drug users are thought to be more ”impulsive” than non-users. Objectives: This study examined whether regular smokers are more impulsive than never smokers using personality and behavioral measures of impulsivity. Methods: Twenty regular smokers (≥15 cigarettes/day) and 20 never smokers were recruited. Participants completed five personality questionnaires to assess impulsivity: Adjective Checklist, Barratt’s Impulsivity Scale, the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire, and the Sensation-Seeking Scale. Participants also performed three behavioral choice tasks designed to assess impulsivity. In the delay task, participants chose between small, immediate and large, delayed monetary rewards. Impulsivity was defined as a relative preference for the small, immediate alternative. In the probability task, participants chose between small, certain and large, uncertain monetary rewards. Impulsivity was defined as a relative preference for the large but more risky alternative. In the work task, participants chose between small monetary rewards obtained by performing a negligible amount of work and a larger amount of money requiring more work. Impulsivity was defined as a relative preference for the smaller, easier alternative. Results: On the personality questionnaires, smokers had statistically higher impulsivity scores on most scales. On the behavioral choice tasks, smokers chose small, immediate money over large, delayed money more frequently, signifying greater levels of impulsivity. There were no differences between the groups’ choices on the other tasks. Correlations between questionnaire and task data were small, as were correlations between data from each task. Conclusions: Together, these results indicate that the smokers were more impulsive than never smokers.