This collection collates faculty and staff collections alphabetically by surname.

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
Filtering by

Clear all filters

141348-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part

Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g., 12 inter-factor correlations above .9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g., only 3 correlations above .8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.

ContributorsPytlikZillig, Lisa M. (Author) / Hamm, Joseph A. (Author) / Shockley, Ellie (Author) / Herian, Mitchell N. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Kimbrough, Christopher D. (Author) / Tomkins, Alan J. (Author) / Bornstein, Brian H. (Author)
Created2016-03-31
141322-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1986, 2000) has generated research and practice ramifications across areas of psychology. However, self-efficacy has yet to be assessed in a legal context. The present paper juxtaposes self-efficacy with self-confidence in terms of theoretical foundations and practical implications, with attention to the area of witness testimony.

Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1986, 2000) has generated research and practice ramifications across areas of psychology. However, self-efficacy has yet to be assessed in a legal context. The present paper juxtaposes self-efficacy with self-confidence in terms of theoretical foundations and practical implications, with attention to the area of witness testimony. It is concluded that the concept of witness self-efficacy possesses thorough theoretical grounding as a potential target for witness preparation. As such, we put forth an integrated model of witness preparation featuring self-efficacy bolstering techniques within an established witness training framework.

ContributorsCramer, Robert J. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
Created2009
360-Thumbnail Image.png
DescriptionAddendum to document recording all the responses from the survey in table form. This document records all the additional comments made on the survey responses
Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2016-01-21
363-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.

This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will

In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.

This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will provide benchmark data for future explorations of this rapidly expanding approach to video in academic libraries.

Streaming video is becoming a common occurrence on many campuses today. Its fast growth is due in part to the steady growth of online classes and programs. Technology has also played a role in this growth as alternatives for ingesting and accessing content have expanded. Multiple options are now available including in-house approaches, cloud storage, and third party vendors.

This survey collected data on how academic institutions address the day-to-day operations related to streaming video as well as perceived directions for future action.

Survey questions addressed selection and acquisition of video in both hard copy and streaming formats, funding for acquisitions, current and planned hosting interfaces, cataloging and access, and current practice and policy on digitization of hard copy titles for streaming. This session reviews the instrument used, and provides a preliminary look at some of the key data collected.

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2013-11-03
359-Thumbnail Image.png
DescriptionDocument recording all the responses from the survey in table form
Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2016-01-21
358-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Survey instrument used in Survey of Academic Library Streaming Video Revisited, 2015

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2015-04-30
364-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Streaming video has been an option for academic libraries for nearly a decade. What is the state of streaming video in academic libraries today? How are these libraries acquiring streaming videos? Who makes acquisition decisions? How much staff time does supporting streaming video require?

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2014-09-30