Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To use Pocket to save bookmarks to PEP-Web articles…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Pocket (formerly “Read-it-later”) is an excellent third-party plugin to browsers for saving bookmarks to PEP-Web pages, and categorizing them with tags.

To save a bookmark to a PEP-Web Article:

  • Use the plugin to “Save to Pocket”
  • The article referential information is stored in Pocket, but not the content. Basically, it is a Bookmark only system.
  • You can add tags to categorize the bookmark to the article or book section.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Monroe, J.M. Fowler, J.C. Diener, M.J. Sexton, J.E. Hilsenroth, M.J. (2013). Criterion Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy (MOA) Scale: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychoanal. Psychol., 30(4):535-566.

(2013). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30(4):535-566

Research

Criterion Validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy (MOA) Scale: A Meta-Analytic Review

Joel M. Monroe, M.A., J. Christopher Fowler, Ph.D., Marc J. Diener, Ph.D., James E. Sexton, Ph.D., Ph.D. and Mark J. Hilsenroth, Ph.D., ABAP

The present study consisted of a meta-analytic review of the criterion validity of the Rorschach Mutuality of Autonomy (Urist, 1977) scale. Search procedures yielded 27 independent samples (total N = 1,803, average n = 67, SD = 31) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results support the criterion validity of the Mutuality of Autonomy with an average overall weighted effect size of r = .24, p < .001 (95% confidence interval = .18, .29). Publication bias analyses indicate the possibility for bias and demonstrate that the likely impact of any such bias would bring the average overall weighted effect size down to r = .18, p < .001 (95% confidence interval for adjusted effect size = .11, .24). The data

were not demonstrably heterogeneous (Q = 37.67, df = 26, p = .07), and all between-study moderator analyses were nonsignificant (ps > .19) with the exception of the specific type of criterion variable. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.