Increased computer use in clinical settings offers an opportunity to develop new neuropsychological tests that exploit the control computers have over stimulus dimensions and timing. However, before adopting new tools, empirical validation is necessary. In the current study, our aims were twofold: to describe a computerized adaptive procedure with broad potential for neuropsychological investigations, and to demonstrate its implementation in testing for visual hemispatial neglect. Visual search results from adaptive psychophysical procedures are reported from 12 healthy individuals and 23 individuals with unilateral brain injury. Healthy individuals reveal spatially symmetric performance on adaptive search measures. In patients, psychophysical outcomes (as well as those from standard paper-and-pencil search tasks) reveal visual hemispatial neglect. Consistent with previous empirical studies of hemispatial neglect, lateralized impairments in adaptive conjunction search are greater than in adaptive feature search tasks. Furthermore, those with right hemisphere damage show greater lateralized deficits in conjunction search than do those with left hemisphere damage. We argue that adaptive tests, which automatically adjust to each individual's performance level, are efficient methods for both clinical evaluations and neuropsychological investigations and have the potential to detect subtle deficits even in chronic stages, when flagrant clinical signs have frequently resolved. (JINS, 2008, 14, 243–256.)

In the article The Use of Natural Law in Early Calvinist Resistance Theory, David VanDrunen, Robert B. Strimple Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary (California), analyzes natural law as it appeared in the writings of several sixteenth—century resistance theorists—John Knox, Christopher Goodman, John Ponet, Theodore Beza, Francois Hotman, and the unknown writer of Vindiciae contra Tyrannos. Van Drunen's article is much needed, since Richard Tuck, in his otherwise astute 1979 study on natural law, does not adequately address Reformation-era developments, focusing instead on Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, and other seventeenth-century theorists. Nevertheless, I take issue with Van Drunen's assertion that these writers were all “committed to the theology of Calvin” and were “early Calvinist resistance theorists.” One could make the case that most of these writers were, but there is one notable exception: English reformer, humanist, bishop, and polemicist John Ponet.