Ever met one of these Phd Phsyc geeks??? pretty frightening <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> This is his best effort to try and make a name for himself. Heck, he might even be trying to leave academia for the real world. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> More power to him, cause the next research paper he works on could cost you more and be even dumber than this. Many famous people in the Psych field started off good, but then went off the deep end. Famous people get a lot of leeway when it comes to money for silly tripe like this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

It's a bit of a stretch to say that any studies done at the University of Texas in Austin would be directly funded by your tax dollars.

Uh, human beings have only been breeding dogs for specific tasks for a few thousand years. Thank heavens this Ph Dumb has come along to let us know it's not all in vain!

 Quote:

It's a bit of a stretch to say that any studies done at the University of Texas in Austin would be directly funded by your tax dollars.

Why would it be a bit of a stretch? I'm sure most folks here from the USA pay income tax. Most research funding comes from the NSF which is federal money. The federal Gov't doesn't produce any products for sale, so all they have is tax money.
He already has one open grant.
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0422924

Well I've lurked for around two years on this board. Now something pops up that I do know something about, so I will chime in for a moment.

 Quote:

Ever met one of these Phd Phsyc geeks??? pretty frightening <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hi. I'm Brit. Try not to urinate on the floor while I explain the errors of your reasoning.

 Quote:

This is his best effort to try and make a name for himself. Heck, he might even be trying to leave academia for the real world. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> More power to him, cause the next research paper he works on could cost you more and be even dumber than this.

What is dumb about creating standardized, valid, and reliable tests for assessing behavioral traits in dogs? Granted, the conceptualization is simplistic, and this researcher could improve this approach by consulting with professionals with experience handling dogs. But with no such measures available (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm talking about measures that have been statistically evaluated and published in peer reviewed journals), this is a start. Imagine a test that you could give to Sally Q who knows ziltch about her dog with "serious behavioral problems" (or really high drive), who doesn't have the money to recruit a good professional trainer (nor the time to find one), and who goes to several different sub-par trainers who all tell her different things. (this was me by the way before I found this board, bought some of Ed's videos, and lurked for two years). One short test that answers these questions. That's a good thing. Imagine another, more sophisticated test, borne out of the first through research and consultation, that enables professionals to identify working candidates faster, with a higher hit rate and lower false alarm rate. Lots of time saved. Lots of money saved. Lots of bad training/selection advice avoided. Those are good things.

I've received quite a bit of training in psychometrics (the measurement of unobservable, psychological traits). Nothing this researcher is saying sounds silly. The constructs are simplistic, but the methodology looks sound and the ultimate goal strikes me as worthwile. If random dog owners can reliably identify behavioral traits in dogs, imagine the sophistication and sensitivty of a test developed from the expertise of some of the mods on this board!

 Quote:

Many famous people in the Psych field started off good, but then went off the deep end. Famous people get a lot of leeway when it comes to money for silly tripe like this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Like who? Dr. Phil? "Dr." Laura? Ah, but you are confusing experimentalists with the wacky clinicians. It's a common mistake by people who know nothing about psychological research. Psychometrics is as much about statistics as it's about psychology, perhaps even more so.


Best,

Brit Mills

 Quote:

I've received quite a bit of training in psychometrics (the measurement of unobservable, psychological traits ...SNIP........Psychometrics is as much about statistics

It must be hard to mis-predict something that can't be observed to prove if the prediction was right or wrong?
And where do you get the numbers for the "statistical" calculations if there are no observable (and thus measurable) items?

 Quote:

It must be hard to mis-predict something that can't be observed to prove if the prediction was right or wrong?
And where do you get the numbers for the "statistical" calculations if there are no observable (and thus measurable) items?

In psychometrics, it's called latent variable modeling.
for example, see
spitswww.uvt.nl/~vermunt/esbs2005d.pdf

For example, intelligence is an unobservable trait, yet we measure it (quite successfully I might add, considering how well it predicts so many other things). Your score on an SAT does not correspond precisely to some hypothetical "true" intelligence score you actually have. It reflects that true score plus measurement error. However, many phenomena of interest in the social and natural sciences - including measurement error - are often randomly distributed (this assumption can easily be tested in latent variable modeling or any other statistical technique) - this means that when you aggregate scores from a sufficiently large sample, statistics of interest (e.g., mean scores on intelligence tests) approximate the "true" score.

For example, see
http://www.statisticalengineering.com/central_limit_theorem.htm

It's no different for any other unobservable trait, such as personality dimensions in humans (introversion/extraversion, neuroticism, etc; or using dogs as an example: fearfulness, aggressivness, fight drive, etc.). If the construct of interest is "silly," assessing instruments designed to measure it will reveal *just that* - it will result in an instrument that has low validity (correlates poorly with other measures/behaviors theory says it should correlate with), and low reliability (low correlations between the items that make up the instrument, and low correlations between multiple administrations of the same instrument.)

Best,

Brit Mills

The joke was on me, I am one of those geeks. However, I can't say exactly, but the last thing I want happening is someone with little knowledge of dogs constructing a test for them. I still deal with the stupid "alpha roll." It is the generalization that gets people in trouble. Plus, I know how blindly desparate owners get to solve the problem themselves, while failing to see the obvious. Look at dog people in general. Our definitions really do show us for what we are. Kennel blind. Nervy which equals fearful/worried why do we not say fearful or worried??
these are a few examples of the disasters the majority of "dog People" are. Give them a test and man that will be fun. NOT <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

However, I can't say exactly, but the last thing I want happening is someone with little knowledge of dogs constructing a test for them.

I see your point. But I don't think the problem is with the method - it's with the simplicity of this guy's conception of canine behavior and temperament.

 Quote:

Our definitions really do show us for what we are. Kennel blind. Nervy which equals fearful/worried why do we not say fearful or worried??

I totally agree. And this is where the method could be extremely useful. It would operationalize the terms, clarifying their meanings by giving people a common metric to discuss them. Meaningful terms would survive by demonstrating predictive value, meaningless (or redundant) ones that predict nothing (or nothing new): isolated and tossed aside. In essence, *quantifying* the intuitions of people with years of experience training dogs.

Best,

Brit