Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

42 results

Page 1 of 3

  • Behaviour Modification with Children: The Generalisation Trap

  • Ronald S. Drabman, J. Scott Allen, Jr., Kenneth J. Tarnowski, Susan J. Simonian, Debra Elliott
  • Journal:
    Behaviour Change / Volume 7 / Issue 4 / December 1990
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 October 2014, pp. 163-171

  • In order to encourage research in generalisation, Drabman, Hammer, and Rosenbaum (1979) introduced a framework to categorise the various generalised effects of child behaviour therapy. Sixteen different potential classes of generalisation were identified. To ascertain the current status of generalisation in the child behaviour therapy literature and further encourage generalisation research, we reviewed articles that appeared in 28 journals over the past 12 years. Of 15,141 studies, only 424 involved children and presented data on generalisation. Results indicated that: (a) a small percentage of studies both involved children and presented data on generalisation (2.77%), (b) of these studies, most failed to meet our methodological criteria for demonstrating generalisation, (c) the generalisation map categories of time, maintenance, setting, and setting-time were the most frequently encountered, (d) there was a significant increase in reported instances of maintenance generalisation effects over the past 10 years when compared with data from our earlier paper, and (e) generalisation data were found concerning 15 of the 16 map classes. Implications of these data, methods of conceptualising generalisation, the generalisation trap, and antecedent strategies for promoting generalisation are discussed.

Reinventing Religious Studies
  • Key Writings in the History of a Discipline
  • Edited by Scott S. Elliott
  • Published by:
    Acumen Publishing
    Published online:
    05 April 2014
    Print publication:
    30 April 2013
  • Reinventing Religious Studies offers readers an opportunity to trace the important trends and developments in Religious Studies over the last forty years. Over this time the study of religion has been transformed into a critical discipline informed by a wide range of perspectives from sociology to anthropology, politics to material culture, and economics to cultural theory. Reinventing Religious Studies brings together key writings which have helped shape scholarship, teaching and learning in the field. All the essays are drawn from the CSSR Bulletin, a provocative, occasionally irreverent, and always critical journal which has long been at the centre of debates in Religious Studies. This collection will prove invaluable for students and scholars of theory and method in Religious Studies. It offers readers a unique opportunity to understand the history of key issues in the study of religion and what remains central to the study of religion today.

  • Introduction

  • Edited by Scott S. Elliott, Adrian College, Michigan, USA
  • Book:
    Reinventing Religious Studies
    Published by:
    Acumen Publishing
    Published online:
    05 April 2014
    Print publication:
    30 April 2013, pp ix-xvi

  • Summary

    My, how times have changed (or stayed the same, perhaps). That is such a cliché, I know. But it is a phrase that has come to mind time and again as I have worked on this project. My first editorial for the CSSR Bulletin (2004) reflected on the break-up of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Yet, in November 2011, following a trial separation, the two organizations again held their respective meetings on the same dates and in the same location (San Francisco, CA), albeit with very clear indications from both parties that the two organizations and their annual conferences were distinct. The oft-troubled waters of that relationship are symptomatic of a field that seems regularly out-of-tune with itself. This is not always a bad thing, necessarily, given the ways that such dissonance leads to critical reflection and fruitful production. Nevertheless, I suspect it is an aspect of the academic study of religion that causes our colleagues in other departments (to say nothing of those commoners wandering along the sidewalks outside our ivy-clad towers) to question, like the outsiders at Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:23), whether we are mad—and I dare say in more than one sense of the word.

    Assembling this volume turned out to be a far more daunting task than I had imagined it would be when I first proposed it.

Page 1 of 3