How Much Do Severely Injured Athletes Experience Sport Injury-Related Growth? Contrasting Psychological, Situational, and Demographic Predictors.

Sport injury-related growth (SIRG) describes the possibility for athletes to benefit psychologically from an injury. The present, preregistered online study examined an international sample of 335 athletes with impressive athletic biographies who sustained a severe sport-related injury. Expanding the extant literature, we empirically contrasted numerous psychological, situational, and demographic predictors of perceived SIRG-specifically, athletes' optimism, coping style, self-efficacy, athletic identity, social support, need satisfaction, and injury centrality. Our data first provide empirical evidence for perceived SIRG, even when statistically controlling for a potential social-desirability bias in athletes' responses. In addition, frequentist and Bayesian regression analyses showed that several psychological variables predicted perceived SIRG-particularly athletes' informational social support, positive reframing, optimism, and injury centrality. Finally, post hoc mediation analyses showed how these psychological variables account for different levels of perceived SIRG as a function of demographic variables. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, along with directions for future research.

The Process Model of Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: Assessing Individual Differences in Strategy Stage and Orientation.

The study of individual differences in emotion regulation has typically focused exclusively either on the stage of the emotion generation process at which regulation occurs or on the engagement versus disengagement orientation of the regulation efforts. We introduce a new measure that samples equally across each stage of the process model of emotion regulation and from both engagement and disengagement orientations. Through five studies (ntotal = 2,543), we present the development and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity evidence for the Process Model of Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (PMERQ). We show the final 10-scale 45-item questionnaire has acceptable internal consistency, is invariant between genders and across the age range, and has sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. The PMERQ also predicts affective and relationship functioning with strategies occurring earlier in the process model generally showing the strongest effects. We propose the PMERQ is a valuable measure to assess individual differences in the use of emotion regulation strategies.

Assessing individual differences in face recognition: No impact of task design features on the structure of this ability.

The ability to remember faces is essential for everyday life, with deficits indicative of some neurological conditions. Face recognition ability tasks vary considerably in their design (i.e., use of the same or a different picture for learning and recall and inclusion or exclusion of nonface characteristics), which is known to impact performance levels. However, it is unknown whether these design features cause additional cognitive abilities to be assessed. We preregistered three hypotheses, namely performance on face recognition tasks can best be explained by: (Hypothesis 1) a single general face recognition ability; (Hypothesis 2) a general face recognition ability and an unrelated ability representing one's capacity to ignore external information when recognizing faces; and (Hypothesis 3) a general face recognition ability, a separable unrelated ability to ignore external information, and a third unrelated ability representing one's capacity to recognize faces specifically when different photographs of the same individual are used. During a controlled laboratory session, N = 176 adults (Mage = 25.52 years) completed 16 face recognition tasks that comprised different versions of the aforementioned task designs. With confirmatory factor analysis, we found support for Hypothesis 1, indicating that the rank order of participants regarding their face recognition ability does not meaningfully differ due to the different task designs, indicating additional abilities are not needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Stressors faced by healthcare professionals and coping strategies during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted great pressure on national health systems, which have aimed to ensure comprehensive healthcare at all times. Healthcare professionals working with COVID-19 patients are on the frontline and thereby confronted with enormous demands. Although early reports exist on the psychological impact of the pandemic on frontline medical staff working in Asia, little is known about its impact on healthcare professionals in other countries and across various work sectors. The present cross-sectional, online survey sought to investigate common work stressors among healthcare professionals, their psychological stress as well as coping resources during the pandemic. METHODS: A sample of 575 healthcare professionals (57% male) in three different sectors (hospital, prehospital emergency care, and outpatient service) reported their experiences concerning work and private stressors, psychological stress, and coping strategies between April 17, 2020 and June 5, 2020. To capture pandemic-specific answers, most of the items were adapted or newly developed. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted to detect underlying latent factors relating to COVID-specific work stressors. In a next step, the effects of these latent stressors across various work sectors on psychological stress (perceived stress, fatigue, and mood) were examined by means of structural equation models (SEM). To add lived experience to the findings, responses to open-ended questions about healthcare professionals' stressors, effective crisis measures and prevention, and individual coping strategies were coded inductively, and emergent themes were identified. RESULTS: The EFA revealed that the examined work stressors can be grouped into four latent factors: "fear of transmission", "interference of workload with private life", "uncertainty/lack of knowledge", and "concerns about the team". The SEM results showed that "interference of workload with private life" represented the pivotal predictor of psychological stress. "Concerns about the team" had stress-reducing effects. The latent stressors had an equal effect on psychological stress across work sectors. On average, psychological stress levels were moderate, yet differed significantly between sectors (all p < .001); the outpatient group experienced reduced calmness and more stress than the other two sectors, while the prehospital group reported lower fatigue than the other two sectors. The prehospital group reported significantly higher concerns about the team than the hospital group (p < .001). In their reports, healthcare professionals highlighted regulations such as social distancing and the use of compulsory masks, training, experience and knowledge exchange, and social support as effective coping strategies during the pandemic. The hospital group mainly mentioned organizational measures such as visiting bans as effective crisis measures, whereas the prehospital sector most frequently named governmental measures such as contact restrictions. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the need for sector-specific crisis measures to effectively address the specific work stressors faced by the outpatient sector in particular. The results on pandemic-specific work stressors reveal that healthcare professionals might benefit from coping strategies that facilitate the utilization of social support. At the workplace, team commitment and knowledge exchange might buffer against adverse psychological stress responses. Schedules during pandemics should give healthcare workers the opportunity to interact with families and friends in ways that facilitate social support outside work. Future studies should investigate cross-sector stressors using a longitudinal design to identify both sector- and time-specific measures. Ultimately, an international comparison of stressors and measures in different sectors of healthcare systems is desirable.