SEEKING CULTURAL FAIRNESS IN A MEASURE OF RELATIONAL REASONING

Relational reasoning, or the ability to identify meaningful patterns within any stream of information, is a fundamental cognitive ability associated with academic success across a variety of domains of learning and levels of schooling. However, the measurement of this construct has been historically problematic. For example, while the construct is typically described as multidimensional—including the identification of multiple types of higher-order patterns—it is most often measured in terms of a single type of pattern: analogy. For that reason, the Test of Relational Reasoning (TORR) was conceived and developed to include three other types of patterns that appear to be meaningful in the educational context: anomaly, antinomy, and antithesis. Moreover, as a way to focus on fluid relational reasoning ability, the TORR was developed to include, except for the directions, entirely visuo-spatial stimuli, which were designed to be as novel as possible for the participant. By focusing on fluid intellectual processing, the TORR was also developed to be fairly administered to undergraduate students—regardless of the particular gender, language, and ethnic groups they belong to. However, although some psychometric investigations of the TORR have been conducted, its actual fairness across those demographic groups has yet to be empirically demonstrated. Therefore, a systematic investigation of differential-item-functioning (DIF) across demographic groups on TORR items was conducted. A large (N = 1,379) sample, representative of the University of Maryland on key demographic variables, was collected, and the resulting data was analyzed using a multi-group, multidimensional item-response theory model comparison procedure. Using this procedure, no significant DIF was found on any of the TORR items across any of the demographic groups of interest. This null finding is interpreted as evidence of the cultural-fairness of the TORR, and potential test-development choices that may have contributed to that cultural-fairness are discussed. For example, the choice to make the TORR an untimed measure, to use novel stimuli, and to avoid stereotype threat in test administration, may have contributed to its cultural-fairness. Future steps for psychometric research on the TORR, and substantive research utilizing the TORR, are also presented and discussed.

Relations among Topic Knowledge, Individual Interest, and Relational Reasoning, and Critical Thinking in Maternity Nursing

Critical thinking in learners is a goal of educators and professional organizations in nursing as well as other professions. However, few studies in nursing have examined the role of the important individual difference factors topic knowledge, individual interest, and general relational reasoning strategies in predicting critical thinking. In addition, most previous studies have used domain-general, standardized measures, with inconsistent results. Moreover, few studies have investigated critical thinking across multiple levels of experience. The major purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which topic knowledge, individual interest, and relational reasoning predict critical thinking in maternity nurses. For this study, 182 maternity nurses were recruited from national nursing listservs explicitly chosen to capture multiple levels of experience from prelicensure to very experienced nurses. The three independent measures included a domain-specific Topic Knowledge Assessment (TKA), consisting of 24 short-answer questions, a Professed and Engaged Interest Measure (PEIM), with 20 questions indicating level of interest and engagement in maternity nursing topics and activities, and the Test of Relational Reasoning (TORR), a graphical selected response measure with 32 items organized in scales corresponding to four forms of relational reasoning: analogy, anomaly, antithesis, and antinomy. The dependent measure was the Critical Thinking Task in Maternity Nursing (CT2MN), composed of a clinical case study providing cues with follow-up questions relating to nursing care. These questions align with the cognitive processes identified in a commonly-used definition of critical thinking in nursing. Reliable coding schemes for the measures were developed for this study. Key findings included a significant correlation between topic knowledge and individual interest. Further, the three individual difference factors explained a significant proportion of the variance in critical thinking with a large effect size. While topic knowledge was the strongest predictor of critical thinking performance, individual interest had a moderate significant effect, and relational reasoning had a small but significant effect. The findings suggest that these individual difference factors should be included in future studies of critical thinking in nursing. Implications for nursing education, research, and practice are discussed.

Language-based Techniques for Practical and Trustworthy Secure Multi-party Computations

Secure Multi-party Computation (MPC) enables a set of parties to collaboratively compute, using cryptographic protocols, a function over their private data in a way that the participants do not see each other's data, they only see the final output. Typical MPC examples include statistical computations over joint private data, private set intersection, and auctions. While these applications are examples of monolithic MPC, richer MPC applications move between "normal" (i.e., per-party local) and "secure" (i.e., joint, multi-party secure) modes repeatedly, resulting overall in mixed-mode computations. For example, we might use MPC to implement the role of the dealer in a game of mental poker -- the game will be divided into rounds of local decision-making (e.g. bidding) and joint interaction (e.g. dealing). Mixed-mode computations are also used to improve performance over monolithic secure computations. Starting with the Fairplay project, several MPC frameworks have been proposed in the last decade to help programmers write MPC applications in a high-level language, while the toolchain manages the low-level details. However, these frameworks are either not expressive enough to allow writing mixed-mode applications or lack formal specification, and reasoning capabilities, thereby diminishing the parties' trust in such tools, and the programs written using them. Furthermore, none of the frameworks provides a verified toolchain to run the MPC programs, leaving the potential of security holes that can compromise the privacy of parties' data. This dissertation presents language-based techniques to make MPC more practical and trustworthy. First, it presents the design and implementation of a new MPC Domain Specific Language, called Wysteria, for writing rich mixed-mode MPC applications. Wysteria provides several benefits over previous languages, including a conceptual single thread of control, generic support for more than two parties, high-level abstractions for secret shares, and a fully formalized type system and operational semantics. Using Wysteria, we have implemented several MPC applications, including, for the first time, a card dealing application. The dissertation next presents Wys*, an embedding of Wysteria in F*, a full-featured verification oriented programming language. Wys* improves on Wysteria along three lines: (a) It enables programmers to formally verify the correctness and security properties of their programs. As far as we know, Wys* is the first language to provide verification capabilities for MPC programs. (b) It provides a partially verified toolchain to run MPC programs, and finally (c) It enables the MPC programs to use, with no extra effort, standard language constructs from the host language F*, thereby making it more usable and scalable. Finally, the dissertation develops static analyses that help optimize monolithic MPC programs into mixed-mode MPC programs, while providing similar privacy guarantees as the monolithic versions.