Middle and high school teachers' praise and reprimand delivery.

This exploratory study expands the literature on teachers' natural use of praise and reprimand, in terms of how teachers deliver praise and reprimand. Sixty-six middle and high school teachers' delivery of praise and reprimand to individual, small groups, and large groups during a 20-min observation were examined. Teachers delivered significantly more general praise (GP) to individual students, rather than small groups or large groups. However, there was no significant difference in teachers' delivery of behavior-specific praise (BSP) to individual, small groups, or large groups of students. Teachers delivered significantly more mild reprimand to individual students compared to small groups; however, no significant differences were found between mild reprimand delivery to individual and large groups of students. Implications and suggestions for future research are offered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A comparison of catch trial methods used in standard automated perimetry in glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the false-positive (FP) response rates between 2 methods used by the Humphrey Field Analyzer in glaucoma patients. METHODS: One eye of one hundred and twenty glaucoma patients was tested twice within 2 months with 24-2 SITA Standard and 24-2 full threshold (FT) perimetric test procedures. FP rates were obtained with the response time window (RTW) method used by SITA and the blank presentation (BP) method of the size V FT procedure. False-negative (FN) catch trial rates were also examined. A repeated measure, 2 x 2 analysis of variance was used to examine error rates, and FP rates for visits 1 and 2 were regressed to investigate its relationship. RESULTS: For FP rates on the first 2 visits, glaucoma patients had no significant differences comparing RTW (SITA) with BP (FT) (1.99% vs. 1.88%) and higher mean FN rates (4.11% vs. 1.69%, P=0.001); the FP rates at visit 2 were similar (1.69% vs. 2.08%) and FN rates were lower for both methods at visit 2. However, when comparing patients with FP responses that occurred with both RTW and BP methods, RTW rates were lower (3.58% vs. 7.72%, P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The RTW method seems to underestimate FP response rates.

Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuli.

OBJECTIVE: To compare empirical probability plots in patients with glaucoma for size V and III perimetry testing. METHODS: We computed empirical probability plot percentile limits after testing 60 age-matched controls tested with both size III (Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm) and size V (full threshold) perimetry twice. Probability plots of 120 patients with glaucoma tested in the same way were computed. We compared the number of abnormal test locations in the 2 stimulus sizes; we then compared these results with those from size III StatPac software (Zeiss Humphrey Systems, Dublin, California) using 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: We found a similar number of abnormal test locations (P < or = .05) for the size III and size V testing conditions identified by the probability plots (no significant difference); there were significantly fewer abnormal locations using StatPac (size III) than from our size III database. When results were stratified by mean deviation, the mild visual loss group again did not show any significant differences between sizes III and V. CONCLUSIONS: Size V full-threshold testing gives a similar number of abnormal test locations in patients with glaucoma compared with the size III Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm standard test. Size V testing, with its greater dynamic range and lower variability, may be a viable alternative to size III testing in patients with glaucoma.

Visual field of high-pass resolution perimetry in normal subjects.

PURPOSE: To investigate the properties of the visual field of high-pass resolution perimetry in normal subjects. METHODS: Four centers collected normative data for high-pass resolution perimetry. In two of the centers the subjects were stratified by age. One eye was tested per subject using high-pass resolution perimetry (Ophthimus). We tested 640 normal subjects and describe their visual field results by test location. We also analyzed the data by concentric zone, age, and by testing center. RESULTS: The individual test location averages confirmed a reduction in resolution with eccentricity. Resolution thresholds increased with age by 0.025 dB per year (P < 0.001). The mean ring size increased by about 1 dB from age 20 to 70. Among centers there were significant differences in the means and the change in threshold with age (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The normal visual field of high-pass resolution perimetry is characterized by an increase in threshold with eccentricity. We found significant differences among the centers that were likely due to multiple factors including differences in subject selection criteria. Whether such differences occur with other perimetric techniques is unknown.

The effect of attention on conventional automated perimetry and luminance size threshold perimetry.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of divided attention on conventional automated perimetry (CAP) and luminance size threshold perimetry (LSTP). METHODS: Ten healthy subjects, ages 27 to 65, with two perimetry types (CAP and LSTP) were tested in random order. At a later session, these tests were given with a mental workload to simulate the effect of anxiety or distraction on subjects performing visual field testing, also in random order. The mental workload, the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), was first administered to each subject, and the score was recorded. During the visual field testing, the PASAT was again administered continuously. Each subject was instructed to attend primarily to the PASAT while taking each visual field test. RESULTS: CAP was affected by the addition of the PASAT, with a worsening of sensitivity from an average of 30.0 +/- 0.67 to 24.2 +/- 7.4 dB with a range of -0.04 to -23.2 dB (P = 0.04). LSTP showed a generalized reduction in threshold 1.71 +/- 0.22 to 2.35 +/- 0.72 dB with a range of 0.12 to -2.17 dB (P = 0.25). The percentage of correct responses on the PASAT was not significantly different between CAP (76.9%) and LSTP (74.8%). False-positive and -negative catch trial responses were increased during CAP with PASAT testing (P = 0.009). A substantial increase of fixation losses occurred during CAP with PASAT (3.7-16.2, P = 0.002). LSTP with PASAT showed increases in localization error (P < 0.001) and reaction time (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Divided attention significantly affects performance on conventional automated perimetry with its fixed size stimuli and when the stimuli are scaled (LSTP). The deficits may simulate nerve-fiber-bundle-like defects.