The scientific side of psychology has been concerned with describing and understanding human and animal behavior for over a century and a half. The engineering or technological side of psychology, concerned with the treatment of individuals’ illnesses, is beginning its second century. The distinction between science and engineering is important for the study of psychological treatments and the extent of their generality and complementarity. Cronbach (1957) has termed the issue the aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI). These interactions occur at the interface between the psychology of individual differences, the most basic of the psychological sciences, and the therapy and treatment of individuals.


True Score Good Linear Unbiased Estimator Good Linear Unbiased Estimator True Score Variance Simultaneous Region 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alwin, D. F., & Tessler, R. C. Causal models, unobserved variables, and experimental data. American Journal of Sociology, 1974, 80, 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babikian, Y. An empirical exposition to determine the relative effectiveness of discovery, laboratory, and expository methods of teaching science concepts. Journal, 1971, 8, 201–210.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. Structural equation models in experimental research. Journal of Marketing Research, 1977, 14, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartlett, M. S. On the theory of statistical regression. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1933, 53, 260–283.Google Scholar
  5. Corno, L., Mitman, A., & Hedges, L. The influence of direct instruction on student self-appraisals: A hierarchical analysis of treatment and aptitude-treatment interaction effects. American Education Research Journal, 1981, 18, 39–61.Google Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1957, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington/Naiburg, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. Darlington, R. B. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 161–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darlington, R. B., & Rom, J. F. Assessing the importance of independent variables in nonlinear causal laws. American Educational Research Journal, 1972, 9, 449–462.Google Scholar
  11. Edgington, A. S. A new tabulation of statistical procedures used in APA journals. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1936, pp. 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
  13. Joreskog, K. G. A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 1970, 57, 239–251.Google Scholar
  14. Joreskog, K. G. A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan, (Eds.), Structural equation model in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. Mendro, R. L. A Monte Carlo study of the robustness of the Johnson-Neyman technique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March 31, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Novick, M. R. Statistics as psychometrics. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Potthoff, R. F. On the Johnson-Neyman technique and some extensions thereof. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rentz, R. R. Rules of thumb for estimating reliability coefficients using generalizability theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1980, 40, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogosa, D. Some results for the Johnson-Neyman technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1977. (University Microfilms, 78–2225).Google Scholar
  20. Rogosa, D. Comparing nonparallel regression lines. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogosa, D. On the relationship between the Johnson-Neyman region of significance and statistical tests of parallel within group regressions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, 41, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sampson, A. R. A tale of two regressions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974, 69, 682–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, D. Trends in counseling and psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 1982, 37, 802–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 752–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sörbom, D. An alternative to the methodology for analysis of covariance. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Willson, V. L. Research techniques in AERJ articles: 1969–1978. Educational Researcher, 1980, 9, 5–10.Google Scholar
  27. Willson, V. L. Misuses of regression approaches to ANOVA and ANCOVA in educational research. Paper presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, Texas, February, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor L. Willson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational, PsychologyTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations