But the two matches this weekend might be a whole lot closer than many are predicting. Joel Selwood's Cats got off to a fast start against the Eagles and they will be aiming to do the same against Richmond. Credit: Getty Images.
Nederlandse Loterij chooses certainty in verification with iDIN
Following the introduction of the pre-finals bye, a week off before a preliminary final can be both a blessing and a curse. In effect, the Magpies and Tigers will have played one game in a month.
There's no doubt that can be beneficial if you've got a host of players fighting to return from injury, but I'm also a big believer that playing football week-on-week helps maintain your edge. Since the pre-finals bye was introduced, the sample size on any advantage is obviously small. In , both teams who had a week off before the preliminary final lost.
In that was reversed, while last year West Coast made the grand final after the week off before meeting Collingwood, who hadn't had the same luxury. That makes it three-all so far. It'll be really interesting to see how that unfolds over a longer period. For Geelong, riding the momentum of last week's victory and backing up seven days later could be crucial given the troubles they've often had in first quarters. Catch Richmond a tad sluggish early on and they can get going and get their confidence up, much like they did in their semi-final against the Eagles.
Of course, starting well doesn't always mean winning. Last year's grand final is a case in point. But for the most part, an early lead in finals is incredibly hard to overturn. As discussions about the series continued a further theme was developed: that what people believe about the workings of markets and their relationships to the state shapes history through the laws that are enacted or discarded. The content of the series was determined by Galbraith with the presentation style directed by his colleagues in the BBC.
Galbraith began by writing a series of essays from which the scripts were derived and from these the book emerged which in many places goes beyond the material covered in the relevant television episode.
- Antons Fine Horse.
- Research Areas;
- Implementation of a new verification.
- Janet Mock’s new memoir is a radical reimagining of the coming-of-age narrative.
- Certainty in Numerical Judgments Develops Independently of the Approximate Number System?
- Doubt and Certainty in the Age of Enlightenment.
- Nederlandse Loterij chooses certainty in verification with iDIN.
Milton Friedman was brought over from Chicago to lecture against Galbraith's economic viewpoints with Nicholas Kaldor opposing him. Along with his other works Economics and the Public Purse and Money , The Age of Uncertainty reinforced Galbraith's stature as a major American economist who upheld and championed traditional Keynesian economics contra to the more free market and liberal economic theories of Milton Friedman.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Machan, p. John Kenneth Galbraith. Furthermore, measurement invariance across gender, age, and over time is supported. Finally, the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised appears to possess adequate reliability and validity. These findings support the unidimensionality of the measure, a conceptually reasonable result in line with the trans-diagnostic nature of Intolerance of Uncertainty.
What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Science in the Age of Certainty
In addition, this study and comparison with published factor structures of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale and of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised identify some issues for the internal structure of the measure. In particular, concern is expressed for the Prospective IU subscale.
In light of the promising psychometric properties, the use of the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised as a univocal measure is encouraged in both research and clinical practice. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Competing interests: We declare that we have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Prof. Mark H. Freeston declares financial conflict of interest training honoraria and book royalties on closely related topics , whereas all the other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. People with high levels of IU find uncertain future events as threatening, upsetting, and undesirable.
In the attempt to control or avoid uncertainty, they usually endorse negative beliefs about their ability to cope with it, they experience high levels of distress, and they are likely to perform maladaptive behaviors like excessive information seeking, avoidance, or impulsive decision-making [ 2 — 6 ]. IU shares similarities with other psychological constructs such as intolerance of ambiguity [ 7 ], distress tolerance [ 8 ], stress vulnerability [ 9 ], action vs.
Muslim Chaplain to the University
Although IU was originally conceptualized as a cognitive vulnerability factor for worry, i. Additionally, recent evidence supports the notion of IU as a trans-diagnostic and trans-therapy change process. In particular, some studies demonstrated the effectiveness of unified treatment protocols focusing on IU when targeting multiple psychopathologies [ 22 , 23 ].
In light of the relevance of IU as a clinical concept, the availability of a valid measure capable of reliably measuring it in both clinical and research settings appears crucial. Given the broad definition of IU underlying the IUS, and the inevitable dependence of factor analytic solutions on sample composition, studies designed to examine its factor structure have led to inconsistent findings, revealing either one- [ 25 ], two- [ 26 — 28 ], three- [ 29 ], four- [ 2 , 30 ], or even five-factor solutions [ 17 ]. Most of all, factors were difficult to interpret and showed cross-loaded items [ 24 , 31 ].
In particular, results suggested that the IUS lacked cross-cultural validity, as different factor structures emerged with different languages i. Furthermore, Norton [ 32 ] investigated the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the IUS in four different racial groups African, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Southeast Asian and reported differences in the factor structure across groups, despite substantially observing similar reliability and validity values. To note, most of these studies were based on under- or post-graduate students; factor analyses were carried out on adult community samples only in a few cases [ 27 , 28 ].
In the attempt to overcome these issues, the original IUS was reduced to a item scale by Carleton et al. Following the previous considerations, Carleton et al. The second, Inhibitory IU, refers to avoidance-oriented responses to uncertainty, i. The authors recommended the use of the IUS total score over the IUS to evaluate general IU as the latter was still too close to a measure of worry [ 26 ].
Its cross-cultural validity i.
Good internal consistency of the IUS total score and of the two subscales has been observed in non-clinical samples [ 3 , 36 , 39 , 40 ], as well as in samples of people diagnosed with GAD [ 36 ], OCD [ 35 ], and comorbid anxiety and depression [ 37 ]. Taken together, the previous findings on the convergent and divergent validity of the IUS support the trans-diagnostic nature of IU. More recently, Hale et al. Therefore, they analyzed the factor structure of the IUS in a sample of American psychology undergraduates and showed that a bifactor model fitted the data better than the unidimensional model and Carleton et al.
They obtained evidence of a strong general factor and of weak and unreliable Prospective and Inhibitory group factors. Similarly, Lauriola, Mosca, and Carleton [ 42 ] tested the factor structure of an Italian translation of the IUS in a sample of psychology university students and also observed that a bifactor model fitted the sample data better than the alternative models. Finally, Shihata, McEvoy and Mullan [ 43 ] recently reported that a bifactor model provided the best fit in Australian psychology undergraduate and clinical samples.
- The Age of Uncertainty - Wikipedia!
- The politics of certainty: conceptions of science in an age of uncertainty..
- Chart 1 Certainty about planned age of retirement.
In both these studies, similar findings to Hale et al. It should be stressed, however, that a better fit of the bifactor model might not necessarily imply that the factor structure of the IUS follows a bifactor structure rather than a unidimensional or a correlated two-factor solution. Indeed, both the substantive interpretation of the bifactor solution as the true factor model underlying specific cognitive or psychological phenomena, and the fact that the bifactor might be advantaged in terms of fit indexes over other models, are still under debate [ 44 — 47 ].
Notwithstanding these issues, the bifactor model can be used to assess whether the group factors can be considered independent and auto-sufficient scales or alternatively whether the unit-weighted total score can be used as a univocal measure of a unidimensional construct without introducing excessive bias due to any multi-dimensionality [ 48 — 51 ]. In the present manuscript the bifactor model is thus considered and investigated more for the latter reasons rather than as a viable alternative model to the unidimensional or the correlated two-factor solution.
Different adaptations of the same questionnaire for children or adults often lead to different items and factor structures, thus making the interpretation and comparison of scores difficult [ 52 ]. Preliminary data supporting the adequacy of the IUS-R have been reported in a sample of Italian undergraduate students: Bottesi et al. Furthermore, the IUS-R total score significantly predicted worry, even after controlling for somatic anxiety and depressive symptoms. However, Bottesi et al.
First, we examine the factor structure of the IUS-R in a large community sample given that a significant proportion of studies on the various IUS measures have been conducted among psychology undergraduates [ 2 , 17 , 26 , 31 , 42 , 43 , 58 ] preventing generalization to community samples. Second, we address measurement invariance across gender and age. To our knowledge, to date only one study assessed gender invariance among university students [ 31 ], whereas none have examined age invariance.
Finally, we address the reliability of the Prospective and Inhibitory subscales, which have been previously suggested to be unreliable [ 31 , 43 ]. As the IUS-R is adapted from the IUS, most of the expected results were based on previous literature on the original version of the questionnaire. A community sample made up of people men and women , living in different midsized communities in northern, central, and southern Italy, were recruited through advertisements requesting volunteers for psychological studies.