Discriminant validity Clause Samples

Discriminant validity. The majority of analyses suggest adequate discriminant validity between HC’s and patients for Total, GA, and SA subscales of the SCARED. For the treatment-seeking sample, both child and parent reports of anxiety were significantly lower for HCs than anxious participants. This is consistent with prior studies that utilize diagnostic interviews to test the SCARED in treatment-seeking anxious patients and youth without psychopathology (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2009) and those with non-anxiety-related disorders (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2013; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2000; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2004). However, results for child-report in the non-treatment- seeking sample were less compelling. Specifically, child-reports of anxiety did not discriminate between HCs and SAD or GAD on the Total scale and GA subscale, nor between HCs and comorbid GAD+SAD on the SA subscale. Few studies have assessed discriminant validity in anxious patients diagnosed with the disorders measured by the SCARED’s specific subscales, or among patients with comorbid anxiety diagnoses. Across all analyses and scales, and largely irrespective of informant, youth comorbid for GAD+SAD had more anxiety symptoms than other patients—as indexed by higher Total, GA, and SA scores (Figs 1-2, purple lines). Thus, youth with comorbid diagnoses had more severe levels of anxiety than individuals with a single diagnosis. This replicates prior work in patients tested with clinical interviews where severity was measured with questionnaires (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012). Support for discriminant validity between patient subtypes was also obtained across the majority of analyses among the treatment-seeking sample. GA scores were higher for GAD and GAD+SAD than SAD alone, while SA scores were higher for SAD and GAD+SAD than GAD alone. A similar pattern emerged for parent-report among the community sample. However, little evidence for discriminant validity was obtained for child- report in the community sample. Taken together, this suggests that in a treatment-seeking sample, the SCARED is able to discriminate between children with anxiety disorders and those free of any psychopathology, and between sub-types of anxious patients based on the subscale that is utilized. In a sample drawn from the community, child-report on the SCARED may be more heterogeneous and reflect a continuum of anxiety symptoms rather than the categorical expression of clinical characteristics. Yet, data from other studies demonstrate that in commun...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Discriminant validity. One-way ANOVAs tested whether child- and parent-report scores on Total, GA, and SA subscales differed across diagnostic groups (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD). Discriminant validity will be confirmed if: 1) each anxious group (GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) has higher Total, GA, and SA scores than the HC group; 2) the GAD and SAD groups differ such that GAD have higher GA scores than SAD, and SAD have higher SA scores than GAD; and 3) the GAD+SAD group has higher GA scores than the SAD group, and SA scores than the GAD group. Significant group differences were interrogated with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. Because six comparisons were conducted for each scale, the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons for each scale (critical p-value = 0.05/6 = .008). When ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇ tests identified non- normally distributed data (see Table 2), results were confirmed with Kruskal-Wallis tests. ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ tests revealed unequal variance for Total, GA, and SA scores across groups in both studies. However, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ T3 post-hoc tests largely confirmed findings (see supplementary materials for further details).
View SourceView Similar (2)
Discriminant validity. (Table 2, Figure 2)—Discriminant validity for the SCARED was largely supported for parent-, but not child-report data. One-way ANOVAs showed groups (HC, GAD, SAD, GAD+SAD) differed for Total child (F(3, 330) = 3.70, p Author Manuscript < .05, η2 = .033) and parent (F(3, 330) = 72.98, p < .001, η2 = .402) scores, GA parent (F(3, 330) = 444850, p < .001, η2 = .309) scores, and SA child (F(3, 330) = 4.95, p < .01, η2 = . 043) and parent (F(3, 330) = 37.75, p < .001, η2 = .258) scores, but not GA child scores (F(3, 330) = 2.35, p > .05, η2 = .021). Results from post-hoc pair-wise comparisons between group scores on each subscale are depicted in Figure 2 (Figure 1; see Table S2 for mean difference scores and corresponding p-values for Bonferroni pairwise comparisons). For parent-report, HCs scored consistently below all three anxious groups on the Total scale. ▇▇▇+SAD scored above GAD and SAD on the Total scale; GAD+SAD and GAD scored above SAD on the GA subscale; and GAD+SAD and SAD scored above GAD on the SA subscale. For child-report, HCs from the full or matched sample scored below SAD on the SA subscale (see supplementary materials for further details). Author Manuscript
View Source

Related to Discriminant validity

  • Discrimination and Harassment ‌ All employees have the right to work in an environment free from all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment. Discrimination is perceived or actual behaviour and includes sexual harassment as a type of discrimination which, generally, is: a) Discriminatory in nature based on race, colour, age, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, gender, sexual orientation, Union or association membership, or because that person has been charged or convicted of a criminal offence that is unrelated to the position; and/or, b) Objectionable because the person committing such behaviour knows or ought to reasonably know that the behaviour creates an environment which is not conducive to work. For the purposes of paragraph 2.09 (b), objectionable behaviour includes, but is not limited to: i) Verbal abuse or threats; ii) Offensive remarks, jokes, innuendoes, or taunting; iii) Display of pornographic, racist, or other offensive or derogatory material; iv) Persistent unwelcome invitations or requests whether direct or indirect; v) Unwelcome physical contact such as touching, patting, pinching or punching; and, vi) Leering, badgering, or intimidating actions. Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours, and other verbal, written, or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: vii) Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; viii) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; ix) Such conduct interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

  • NO DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT 6.01 The Company and the Union agree that there shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction or coercion exercised or practised with respect to any employee by reason of age, marital status, sex, race, creed, colour, national origin, political or religious affiliation, handicap, sexual orientation nor by reason of Union membership or position in the Union. Prohibited grounds shall be interpreted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code. 6.02 The Union and the Company recognize that sexual, racial, and violent harassment is a cruel and destructive behaviour against others that can have devastating effects. (a) Sexual harassment is any unwanted attention of a sexual nature such as remarks about appearance or personal life, offensive written or visual actions like graffiti or degrading pictures, physical contact of any kind, or sexual demands. (b) Racial harassment is any action, whether verbal or physical that expresses or promotes racial hatred in the workplace such as racial slurs, written or visually offensive actions, jokes or other unwanted comments or acts. (c) Violent Harassment includes any form of attempted, threatened, actual conduct or physical force of a person that causes or is likely to cause injury, and includes any threatening statement or behaviour that gives an employee reasonable cause to believe that the employee is at risk of injury. 6.03 Any claims of harassment or discrimination, should be brought to the attention of management, Human Resources and/or any local union elected person or official. Complaints of alleged harassment or discrimination as outlined in .01 by members of the bargaining unit will be handled with all possible confidentiality by a joint committee consisting of the Plant Chairperson and/or his designee and the Human Resource Manager and/or his designee. (a) The investigation will be handled promptly within ten (10) working days from the date the complaint was filed. Investigation will be reviewed by Plant Chairperson and Human Resources Manager for final resolution. If unresolved the complaint may be taken up as a grievance at Step 3. 6.04 Any confirmed allegations of the above harassment(s) may result in discipline up to and including termination. 6.05 This article is not intended to restrict any employee's rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code. 6.06 The parties agree that normal social/business conduct between people does not constitute harassment. 6.07 The pursuit of frivolous allegations of Human Rights violations has a detrimental effect on the spirit and intent for which this policy was rightfully developed and should be discouraged. Frivolous charges of harassment may be subject to disciplinary action. 6.08 Whenever in this agreement, the masculine gender is used, it will also include the feminine.

  • Discrimination Prohibited The Landlord shall not discriminate based upon race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, handicap, or disability, familial status or recipients of public assistance; and shall comply with all nondiscrimination requirements of Federal, State and local law.

  • NO DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT 14.01 There shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction, coercion, harassment, intimidation or any disciplinary action exercised or practiced with respect to an employee by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, conviction for which a pardon has been granted, or union affiliation. 14.02 Grievances arising from Article 14.01 shall first be dealt with through an alternate dispute resolution process (ADR) as agreed to by the parties. Once alternate dispute resolution mechanisms are agreed to by the parties, the grievance will be held in abeyance pending the results of the ADR process. Furthermore, employees are precluded from other avenues of redress, save and except applicable legislative procedures, until the ADR process has concluded. The ADR process shall not result in any unreasonable delay. 14.03 Any level in the grievance procedure shall be waived if a person hearing the grievance is the subject of the complaint.

  • Discrimination Clause The contractor agrees to abide by the requirements of the following as applicable: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Federal Executive Order 11246 as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended, and contractor agrees to abide by the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Contractor agrees not to discriminate in its employment practices, and will render services under this contract without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran status, political affiliation, or disabilities. Any act of discrimination committed by Contractor, or failure to comply with these statutory obligations when applicable shall be grounds for termination of this contract.