Current definitions of asexuality focus on sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and lack of sexual orientation or sexual excitation; however, the extent to which these definitions are accepted by self-identified asexuals is unknown. The goal of Study 1 was to examine relationship characteristics, frequency of sexual behaviors, sexual difficulties and distress, psychopathology, interpersonal functioning, and alexithymia in 187 asexuals recruited from the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). Asexual men (n = 54) and women (n = 133) completed validated questionnaires online. Sexual response was lower than normative data and was not experienced as distressing, and masturbation frequency in males was similar to available data for sexual men. Social withdrawal was the most elevated personality subscale; however, interpersonal functioning was in the normal range. Alexithymia was elevated in 12%. Social desirability was also in the normal range. Study 2 was designed to expand upon these quantitative findings with 15 asexuals from Study 1 through in-depth telephone interviews. The findings suggest that asexuality is best conceptualized as a lack of sexual attraction; however, asexuals varied greatly in their experience of sexual response and behavior. Asexuals partnered with sexuals acknowledged having to "negotiate" sexual activity. There were not higher rates of psychopathology among asexuals; however, a subset might fit the criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder. There was also strong opposition to viewing asexuality as an extreme case of sexual desire disorder. Finally, asexuals were very motivated to liaise with sex researchers to further the scientific study of asexuality.

Although it is often assumed that mathematics ability alone predicts mathematics test performance, linguistic demands may also predict achievement. This study examined the role of language in mathematics assessment performance for children with intellectual disability (ID) at less severe levels, on the KeyMath-Revised Inventory (KM-R) with a sample of 264 children, in grades 2-5. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the hypothesis that the KM-R would demonstrate discriminant validity with measures of language abilities in a two-factor model was compared to two plausible alternative models. Results indicated that KM-R did not have discriminant validity with measures of children's language abilities and was a multidimensional test of both mathematics and language abilities for this population of test users. Implications are considered for test development, interpretation, and intervention.

The strategy choice model (SCM) is a highly influential theory of human problem-solving. One strength of this theory is the allowance for both item and person variance to contribute to problem-solving outcomes, but this central tenet of the model has not been empirically tested. Explanatory item response theory (EIRT) provides an ideal approach to testing this core feature of SCM, as it allows for simultaneous estimation of both item and person effects on problem-solving outcomes. We used EIRT to test and confirm this central tenet of the SCM for adolescents’ (n = 376) solving of addition problems. The approach also allowed us to identify the strategy choices of adolescents who still struggle with basic arithmetic. The synthesis of SCM theory and EIRT modeling has implications for more fully investigating the sources of individual differences in students’ problem solving, and for identifying problem-solving patterns associated with poor academic achievement.

Seymour, Roeper, & deVilliers, 2003) is a culturally and linguistically unbiased screening tool used to identify children who may be at risk of significant language delays among the larger population of children who speak nonmainstream American English (NMAE) dialects. The DELV-S was developed in response to concerns about the misdiagnosis of African American and other linguistic-minority children with language disorders. In general, language assessments are particularly susceptible to performance bias, especially in linguistically diverse contexts such as the United States (Seymour, Bland-Stewart, & Green, 1998; Washington & Craig, 2004). Specifically, with regard to African American children, many become fluent speakers of African American English (AAE). AAE is a rule-governed, systematic cultural dialect of American English whose form, content, and use are different from more mainstream varieties of American English (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2006). Although its use is particularly stigmatizing in formal contexts (e.g., schools, workplace, written texts), child language and sociolinguistic research have confirmed that AAE is not a deficient form of American English (Stockman, 2010). Despite vast empirical evidence on the nature of child AAE use, African American children continue to be overrepresented in diagnoses of speech language impairments (Klingner et al., 2005). Diagnostic accuracy is particularly complicated within this population, because many AAE features are similar to clinical markers of language impairments (e.g., variable production of grammatical markers such as the regular past tense-ed). Thus, screening tools such as the DELV-S can be very helpful to both clinicians and researchers seeking to characterize African American children's language use. In fact, many researchers have used the DELV-S to describe both spoken dialect use and language ability among young children (e.g., Horton & Apel, 2014; Terry, Connor, Petscher, & Conlin, 2012). However, the psychometric properties of the DELV-S have not been explored extensively. Briefly, the DELV-S has two parts. Part I of the DELV-S is used to evaluate children's NMAE use, with responses allowing children to be characterized as speaking with strong, some, or little to no variation 679402A EIXXX10.