Re: post to R Adelman/ return reply

Chad L. Hagans (
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:19:23 -0400

>Have you heard anything about the Seattle conference? I suspect the reason
>there has not been much mail is because people are recovering from the

I returned from the conference Sunday and am glad to say it was a
tremendous success. Hats off to Jerald Forster, April Metzler, and all the
attendees for making it so memorable.

Chad Hagans
University of Florida

At 09:01 PM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I reread the '92 Winter article and realized he is really interpreting his
>data in terms of organization of constructs rather than content of
>constructs. It seems odd that so much of the published research focuses on
>construct structures instead of content,
>given Kelly's focus on meaning. Is PCP limited to case studies when it
>comes to the analysis of meaning? What methods are there for comparing
>construct content between patients or groups of patients?
>Thanks for the reminder about common constructs. I would think that is the
>only way to go in a group study, whereas with an individual client one
>would not have this constraint. I have not seen anything as to a method
>for setting up the "sorts" of elements. Is this done in a random fashion?
>> From: Bob Green <>
>> To:
>> Subject: post to R Adelman
>> Date: Thursday, July 17, 1997 3:35 PM
>> Rob,
>> For some reason my post to your private address was unsuccessful.
>> Regarding your post:
>> >I have enjoyed watching the dialogue we started on schizophrenia.
>> >Everybody's comments have helped me clarify the focus of my research. I
>> >now at the point where I am trying to tighten up my procedures. I was
>> >wondering whether anyone was
>> >having the patient select their own sorts of elements for construct
>> >elicitation. It seemed like this may be a more projective procedure
>> >presenting the sorts to in an experimenter arranged format.
>> What you need to consider is how you will analyse the data. If you want
>> make 'direct' comparisons between patients you should consider common
>> elements, otherwise you can probably only do individual analyses. Bear
>> mind that a grid can take 1-2 hours at least. Test this for yourself.
>> people will be able to generate constructs and not readily rate and
>> vice versa. It will all depend on your hypotheses.
>> I have been considering dyadic elicitation as discussed by Button. I
>> suggest trying out a few approaches and see what patients can cope with.
>> >He has a '93
>> >article in A Psychology of the Future by B.Walker et al. that is a
>> >study of patients discharged from the hospital, also. I've not been
>> >to find this in this country. Are you familiar with it?
>> I believe the 1993 article is based on the Townsville PCP conference. I
>> will see if I have the article and how it differs from the 1992 article.
>> Regards,
>> Bob

Chad L. Hagans
Department of Psychology
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
FAX (352) 392-7985