PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L R Goldberg

Publications and source records attributed to L R Goldberg.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus vs. cyclosporine with MMF in cardiac transplant patients: 1-year report.

The most advantageous combination of immunosuppressive agents for cardiac transplant recipients has not yet been established. Between November 2001 and June 2003, 343 de novo cardiac transplant recipients were randomized to receive steroids and either tacrolimus (TAC) + sirolimus (SRL), TAC + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclosporine (CYA) + MMF. Antilymphocyte induction therapy was allowed for up to 5 days. The primary endpoint of >/=3A rejection or hemodynamic compromise rejection requiring treatment showed no significant difference at 6 months (TAC/MMF 22.4%, TAC/SRL 24.3%, CYA/MMF 31.6%, p = 0.271) and 1 year (p = 0.056), but it was significantly lower in the TAC/MMF group when compared only to the CYA/MMF group at 1 year (23.4% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.029). Differences in the incidence of any treated rejection were significant (TAC/SRL = 35%, TAC/MMF = 42%, CYA/MMF = 59%; p < 0.001), as were median levels of serum creatinine (TAC/SRL = 1.5 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 1.3 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 1.5 mg/dL; p = 0.032) and triglycerides (TAC/SRL = 162 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 126 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 154 mg/dL; p = 0.028). The TAC/SRL group encountered fewer viral infections but more fungal infections and impaired wound healing. These secondary endpoints suggest that the TAC/MMF combination appears to offer more advantages than TAC/SRL or CYA/MMF in cardiac transplant patients, including fewer >/=3A rejections or hemodynamic compromise rejections and an improved side-effect profile.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Analyses of Digman's child-personality data: derivation of Big-Five factor scores from each of six samples.

One of the world's richest collections of teacher descriptions of elementary-school children was obtained by John M. Digman from 1959 to 1967 in schools on two Hawaiian islands. In six phases of data collection, 88 teachers described 2,572 of their students, using one of five different sets of personality variables. The present report provides findings from new analyses of these important data, which have never before been analyzed in a comprehensive manner. When factors developed from carefully selected markers of the Big-Five factor structure were compared to those based on the total set of variables in each sample, the congruence between both types of factors was quite high. Attempts to extend the structure to 6 and 7 factors revealed no other broad factors beyond the Big Five in any of the 6 samples. These robust findings provide significant new evidence for the structure of teacher-based assessments of child personality attributes.

Affect↗
PubMed2001

Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: premises, products, and prospects.

The rationale for lexical studies rests on the assumption that the most meaningful personality attributes tend to become encoded in language as single-word descriptors. We articulate some key premises of the lexical approach and then review a number of studies that have been conducted examining the factor structure of personality descriptors extracted from dictionaries. We compare lexical studies in English and 12 other languages, with attention to delineating consistencies between the structures found in diverse languages. Our review suggests that the Anglo-Germanic Big Five is reproduced better in some languages than in others. We propose some organizing rules for lexical factor structures that may be more generalizable than the contemporary Big-Five model. And, we propose several candidate structural models that should be compared with the Big Five in future studies, including structures with one, two, and three very broad factors, an alternative five-factor structure identified in Italian and Hungarian studies, and a seven-factor structure represented in Hebrew and Philippine studies. We recommend that in future studies more attention be paid to middle-level personality constructs and to examining the effects of methodological variations on the resulting factor structures.

Culture↗
PubMed1999

The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives.

This description of the Turkish lexical project reports some initial findings on the structure of Turkish personality-related variables. In addition, it provides evidence on the effects of target evaluative homogeneity vs. heterogeneity (e.g., samples of well-liked target individuals vs. samples of both liked and disliked targets) on the resulting factor structures, and thus it provides a first test of the conclusions reached by D. Peabody and L. R. Goldberg (1989) using English trait terms. In 2 separate studies, and in 2 types of data sets, clear versions of the Big Five factor structure were found. And both studies replicated and extended the findings of Peabody and Goldberg; virtually orthogonal factors of relatively equal size were found in the homogeneous samples, and a more highly correlated set of factors with relatively large Agreeableness and Conscientiousness dimensions was found in the heterogeneous samples.

Cooperative Behavior↗
PubMed1998

A dystrophin missense mutation showing persistence of dystrophin and dystrophin-associated proteins yet a severe phenotype.

A muscle biopsy from an X-linked muscular dystrophy pedigree showed normal dystrophin and dystrophin-associated proteins. Linkage to multiple markers within the dystrophin gene (LOD=2.7, theta=0) indicated a primary dystrophinopathy. Sequencing of the entire dystrophin RNA revealed a single missense mutation (D3335H) in the unique carboxyl-terminal domain. This is the first report showing that a relatively severe dystrophinopathy can occur despite the correct localization of dystrophin and dystrophin-associated proteins.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed1998

Adverse events after protamine administration in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass: risks and predictors of under-reporting.

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass over 2 years at a single hospital was performed to determine the rate and predictors of attributing events to protamine and reporting them to a well-developed, hospital-based adverse drug reaction (ADR) program. Overall, 123 (12.9%) of 952 procedures were associated with an adverse event. Thirteen percent of these events were attributed to protamine in the medical record and 2.4% were reported to the ADR program. Only 19% of events attributed to protamine were reported. Even after excluding events with other measurable etiologies, the incidence of adverse events (2.6%) was still higher than that of attributed (0.8%) or reported (0.3%) events. Events that manifest as pulmonary hypertension occurred sooner after protamine, or were severe were significantly more likely to be attributed to protamine. These predictors demonstrated similar relationships with the probability of reporting events. Reliance on reporting of adverse events could not only underestimate the risk of these events, but might bias studies by identifying non-representative events.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed1998

What is beyond the big five?

Previous investigators have proposed that various kinds of person-descriptive content--such as differences in attitudes or values, in sheer evaluation, in attractiveness, or in height and girth--are not adequately captured by the Big Five Model. We report on a rather exhaustive search for reliable sources of Big Five-independent variation in data from person-descriptive adjectives. Fifty-three candidate clusters were developed in a college sample using diverse approaches and sources. In a nonstudent adult sample, clusters were evaluated with respect to a minimax criterion: minimum multiple correlation with factors from Big Five markers and maximum reliability. The most clearly Big Five-independent clusters referred to Height, Girth, Religiousness, Employment Status, Youthfulness and Negative Valence (or low-base-rate attributes). Clusters referring to Fashionableness, Sensuality/Seductiveness, Beauty, Masculinity, Frugality, Humor, Wealth, Prejudice, Folksiness, Cunning, and Luck appeared to be potentially beyond the Big Five, although each of these clusters demonstrated Big Five multiple correlations of .30 to .45, and at least one correlation of .20 and over with a Big Five factor. Of all these content areas, Religiousness, Negative Valence, and the various aspects of Attractiveness were found to be represented by a substantial number of distinct, common adjectives. Results suggest directions for supplementing the Big Five when one wishes to extend variable selection outside the domain of personality traits as conventionally defined.

Female↗
PubMed1996

The Big-Five factor structure as an integrative framework: an analysis of Clarke's AVA model.

Using a large (N = 3,629) sample of participants selected to be representative of U.S. working adults in the year 2,000, we provide links between the constructs in 2 personality models that have been derived from quite different rationales. We demonstrate the use of a novel procedure for providing orthogonal Big-Five factor scores and use those scores to analyze the scales of the Activity Vector Analysis (AVA). We discuss the implications of our many findings both for the science of personality assessment and for future research using the AVA model.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

So what do you propose we use instead? A reply to Block.

Unfortunately, Block's brilliant critique is terribly biased, much like a legal brief that presents only one side of the issues at suit. It does not distinguish between the Big Five model of phenotypic personality attributes from alternative models of the causal underpinnings of personality differences. Ironically, it attempts to explain away the extensive evidence for the Big Five model as largely the result of data prestructuring, with no acknowledgement of the unique contribution of the lexical approach to minimizing such problems. Even more seriously, it omits a good deal of crucial evidence favorable to the Big Five model, including studies of Block's own Q-set and independent investigations of personality-related terms in other languages. Sadly, Block's closing suggestions provide little in the way of specific proposals for alternatives that he would have us use instead.

Factor Analysis, Statistical↗
PubMed1993

The structure of phenotypic personality traits.

This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.

Humans↗
PubMed1992

Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure.

To integrate the 5-dimensional simple-structure and circumplex models of personality, the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) taxonomy of personality traits was developed, consisting of the 10 circumplexes that can be formed by pitting each of the Big Five factors against one another. The model maps facets of the Big Five dimensions as blends of 2 factors. An application to data consisting of 636 self-ratings and peer ratings on 540 personality trait adjectives yielded 34 well-defined facets out of a possible 45. The AB5C solution is compared with simple-structure and lower dimensional circumplex solutions, and its integrative and corrective potential are discussed, as well as its limitations.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies: studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts.

A person's behavior and experiences can be described at different levels of abstraction. For example, a person might be described as charitable, as generous, as kind, or as good. Is there a level in such a trait hierarchy that is particularly useful in personality descriptions? The present 4 studies show that there is indeed a general preference for a particular level; the size of this preference depends on the familiarity and likability of the target people, which included various others and the self. These findings suggest that in trait hierarchies, people prefer the highest level of abstraction that is still descriptive of behavior (e.g., kind) over more descriptive subordinate levels (e.g., charitable and generous) and over an even broader level devoid of descriptive meaning (e.g., good). This level is basic in that it represents the optimal resolution of the trade-off between bandwidth and fidelity that characterizes all hierarchies.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure.

In the 45 years since Cattell used English trait terms to begin the formulation of his "description of personality," a number of investigators have proposed an alternative structure based on 5 orthogonal factors. The generality of this 5-factor model is here demonstrated across unusually comprehensive sets of trait terms. In the first of 3 studies, 1,431 trait adjectives grouped into 75 clusters were analyzed; virtually identical structures emerged in 10 replications, each based on a different factor-analytic procedure. A 2nd study of 479 common terms grouped into 133 synonym clusters revealed the same structure in 2 samples of self-ratings and in 2 samples of peer ratings. None of the factors beyond the 5th generalized across the samples. In the 3rd study, analyses of 100 clusters derived from 339 trait terms suggest their potential utility as Big-Five markers in future studies.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors.

Three determinants of the factor structures of personality traits are investigated. The 1st, selection of variables, was controlled by using 57 bipolar scales, selected to be representative of common trait terms. In analyses of 7 data sets, variants of the "Big Five" factors were always found. Factor similarities were very strong for the 3 largest factors, which were transformed into general evaluation and 2 descriptive dimensions. As a 2nd determinant, judgments about real people were compared with judgments about the conceptual relations among traits. Factor structures based on the 2 types of judgments are similar, but those based on conceptual judgments tend to be simpler. The 3rd determinant involved the degree of restriction of the sample to evaluatively homogeneous targets. Restriction of range reduced the size of all factors, especially Factor II. Findings from previous studies are integrated within this framework.

Assertiveness↗
PubMed1988

Conceptions of states and traits: dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes.

Traits and states are concepts that people use to both describe and understand themselves and others. We show that people view these concepts as prototype-based categories that have a graded internal structure and fuzzy boundaries and identify a set of attributes that define the prototypical cores of two categories: traits and states. Prototypical traits are stable, long-lasting, and internally caused. Prototypical states are temporary, brief, and caused by external circumstances. These prototypes are not defined by averages, as the family-resemblance principle would suggest, but by ideal (or extreme) attribute values. Like other ideal-based categories, traits and states serve particular goals. Trait concepts permit people to predict the present from the past; state concepts identify those behaviors that can be controlled by manipulating the situation. These two complementary schemas are part of the extensive theory of psychological causality that is implicit in language. Abstract social concepts differ from object categories in their category standards, the nature of their attributes, and the interrelations among those attributes.

Behavior↗
PubMed1985

The prediction of semantic consistency in self-descriptions: characteristics of persons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs.

Subjects described themselves, using an alphabetically ordered list of 191 trait adjectives, which included sets of synonyms and antonyms, half of each type more difficult than the other half. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. In one condition, each adjective was listed with its dictionary definition; in the other condition, only the adjectives were listed. All subjects were administered a battery of demographic, cognitive, and personality measures. We analyzed both the relative consistency elicited by different pairs of terms and the individual differences in semantic consistency displayed by different sorts of subjects. Although the provision of definitions served to increase consistency (especially for the difficult antonyms), it did not decrease the range of consistency values across either synonym or antonym pairs. And, although interpair differences in semantic consistency were as difficult to predict in this study as in previous ones, individual differences were highly predictable. The implications of our many findings are discussed in the context of various hypotheses about semantic inconsistency in self-reports.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency.

Bem and Allen (1974) purportedly found evidence that, by using self-report measures of cross-situational consistency as moderator variables, it was possible to substantially increase the size of correlation coefficients computed among measures of each of two personality traits. The present study was undertaken to (a) replicate the Bem and Allen finding on a larger set of personality traits, (b) determine if the results hold differentially for self-report, other-report, and objective personality measures, and (c) compare different methods for dividing subjects into high and low consistent groups. One hundred twelve subjects (64 men and 48 women) were divided into high and low consistent groups using three different methods. Within each group correlations were computed among and between 6 self-report measures, 10 other-report measures, and when possible a few objective measures, for each of eight traits. In general, none of the methods of consistency classification replicated the Bem and Allen finding. In cases where the high consistent group had a larger average correlation among the measures than their low consistent counterparts, the size of that difference was negligible. Moreover, there were about as many instances in which the low consistent group actually had larger average correlations. Finally, there was essentially no agreement among the various consistency classification methods in dividing subjects into high and low consistent subsamples.

Assertiveness↗