Future Courses

These are courses that I'd one day like to teach. For some of the courses, I've put a little thought into what I'd like to cover and occasionally, those readings appear below. I'm also open to teaching anything I've taught before or developing new applied statistical courses. All material below is in development and readings may change.

    • Multigroup CFA

      • Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78-S94. (pdf)

  • Multilevel Factor Analysis

    • Reise, S. P., Ventura, J., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Kim, K. H. (2005). An illustration of multilevel factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(2), 126-136. (pdf)

  • COURSE: Item Response Theory

      1. Engelhard, G. E., Jr. (1997). Introduction to the section on measurement.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 5-7.

      2. Traub, R. E. (1997). Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 8-14.

      3. Brennan, R. (1997). A perspective on the history of generalizability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 14-20.

      4. Bock, R. D. (1997). A brief history of item response theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 21-32.

      5. Wright, B. D (1997). A history of social science measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 33-45.

      6. Lu, I. R. R., Thomas, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2005). Embedding IRT in structural equation models: A comparison with regression based on IRT scores. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 263-277.

      7. Edwards, M. C. (2009). An introduction to item response theory using the need for cognition scale. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3/4, 507-529. (supplemental files)

      8. Loken, E. & Rulison, K. L. (2010). Estimation of a four-parameter item response theory model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63,509-525.

  • COURSE: Meta-Science

Clinical Utility vs. Scientific Accuracy

  • Key Readings

    • First, M.B., Pincus, H.A., Levine, J.B., Williams, J.B.W., Ustun, B., & Peele, R. (2004). Clinical utility as a criterion for revising psychiatric diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 946–954. (pdf)

    • Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (2004). Dimensions of personality pathology: An alternative to the Five Factor Model. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161,1743-1754. (pdf).

    • Widiger, T.A., & Trull, T.J. A simplistic understanding of the five-factor model. The American Journal of Psychiatry 162(8), 1550-1551. (pdf)

    • Westen, D., Waller, N., Shedler, J., & Blagov, P. (in press). Dimensions of personality and personality pathology: Factor structure of the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-II (SWAP-II), Journal of Personality Disorders.

    • Shedler, J., Beck, A., Fonagy, P., Gabbard, G. O., Gunderson, O., Kernberg, O., Michels, R., & Westen, D. (2010). Personality disorders in DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(9), 1026-1028. (pdf)

    • Skodol, A. E., (2011). Revision of the personality disorder model for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(1), 97. (pdf)

    • Shedler, J., Beck, A.T., Fonagy, P., Gabbard, G. O., Kernberg, O., Michels, R., & Westen, D. (2011). Response to the Skodol letter. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(1), 97-98. (pdf)

  • Additional Resources

    • Glover, NG, Crego, C, Widiger, T.A. (2012). The clinical utility of the Five Factor Model of personality disorder. Personality Disorders, 3(2), 176-84. (pdf)

    • Gore, W.L., & Widiger, T.A. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 122(3), 816-21. (pdf)

    • Mullins-Sweatt, S.N., & Widiger, T.A. (2011). Clinician's judgments of the utility of the DSM-IV and five-factor models for personality disordered patients. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(4). 463-77. (pdf)

    • Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (2004). Refining personality disorder diagnoses:Integrating science and practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1-16. (pdf)

    • Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 317-344. (pdf).

    • Spitzer, R.L., First, M.B., Shedler, J.S., Westen, D., & Skodol, A. (2008). Clinical utility of five dimensional systems for personality diagnosis: A consumer preference study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 356-374. (pdf)

    • Trull, T. J. (2012). The Five Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5. Journal of Personality, 80(6), 1697-1720. (pdf).

    • Westen, D. (2006). Drizzling on the 5+3 factor parade: A response to Trull. In T. Widiger & E. Simonson (Eds.), Dimensional models of personality disorder: Refining the research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 189-194). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press. (pdf)

    • Westen, D., Shedler, J., Bradley, B., & DeFife, J.A. (2012). An empirically derived taxonomy for personality diagnosis: Bridging science and practice in conceptualizing personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(3), 273-284. (pdf)

    • Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999). Revising and assessing Axis II, Part 1:Developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 258-272. (pdf)

    • Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999). Revising and assessing Axis II, Part 2: Toward an empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 273-285. (pdf)

    • Widiger, T.A. & Costa P.T., Jr (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 80(6), 1471-506. (pdf)

Idiographic Methodology

  • Nesselroade

  • Molenaar

  • Ram

  • Lamielle

  • Ioannidis & Garber (2011) (pdf)

Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing

  • Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. (pdf)

  • Lambden, C. (2012). Significance tests as sorcery: Science is empirical−−significance tests are not. Theory & Psychology, 22, 67-90 (pdf)

  • Schmidt, F., L, & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37-64). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (pdf)

  • P-hacking (pdf)

  • COURSE: Regression

  • COURSE: Test Theory