Anhedonia, a central dimension within the schizotypy construct, has been considered to be a promising vulnerability marker for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. The Revised Physical Anhedonia Scale (RPhA) and Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS) are two self-reports widely used in the assessment of anhedonia; however, they psychometric characteristics have been scarcely investigated in Spanish population. The objective of the current work was to study the psychometric properties of the Revised Physical and Social Anhedonia Scales in non-clinical young adults. The sample was composed of 728 college students with a mean age of 20.1 years (SD=2.5. The data indicated that the scales showed adequate psychometric characteristics. The Cronbach alpha was 0.95 (RSAS) and 0.92 (RPhA) respectively. The confirmatory factor analysis carried out on the matrix of tetrachoric correlations showed that both scales presented an essentially unidimensional solution. The Revised Physical and Social Anhedonia Scales seem to be adequate for psychosis-risk assessment in non-clinical populations. Future research should further investigate the construct validity in other populations and cultures as well as study its relation to emotional aspects and cognitive endophenotypes.

Visual inspection remains the most frequently applied method for detecting treatment effects in single-case designs. The advantages and limitations of visual inference are here discussed in relation to other procedures for assessing intervention effectiveness. The first part of the paper reviews previous research on visual analysis, paying special attention to the validation of visual analysts' decisions, inter-judge agreement, and false alarm and omission rates. The most relevant factors affecting visual inspection (i.e., effect size, autocorrelation, data variability, and analysts' expertise) are highlighted and incorporated into an empirical simulation study with the aim of providing further evidence about the reliability of visual analysis. Our results concur with previous studies that have reported the relationship between serial dependence and increased Type I rates. Participants with greater experience appeared to be more conservative and used more consistent criteria when assessing graphed data. Nonetheless, the decisions made by both professionals and students did not match sufficiently the simulated data features, and we also found low intra-judge agreement, thus suggesting that visual inspection should be complemented by other methods when assessing treatment effectiveness.

The h index has advantages over journal impact factors for assessing the research performance of individuals, and it is becoming a reference tool for career assessment that is starting to be considered by some agencies as an aid in decisions for promotion, allocation, and funding. The h index has been reported to have adequate properties as a measure of the research accomplishments of individuals in areas where h values are usually high (i.e., at or above 40), but some concerns have been raised that its validity in other non-mainstream research areas is suspect. This paper presents data from an exhaustive computation and analysis of h indices for 204 faculty members in the area of Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences in Spain, an area where h indices tend to be low worldwide. The results indicate that the h index is substantially increased by self-citations and that the average h of full professors is not meaningfully larger than the average h of associate professors. Other interesting relations between h indices and demographic and academic variables are described, including the gender and age bias of h. In this field, but perhaps also in other fields where the average h is low, little justification is found for the use of the h index as a fair measure of research performance that can aid in funding or promotion decisions.