Relations between work and upper extremity musculoskeletal problems (UEMSP) and the moderating role of psychosocial work factors on the relation between computer work and UEMSP.

PURPOSE: Computer work has been identified as a risk factor for upper extremity musculoskeletal problems (UEMSP). But few studies have investigated how psychosocial and organizational work factors affect this relation. Nor have gender differences in the relation between UEMSP and these work factors  been studied. We sought to estimate: (1) the association between UEMSP and a range of physical, psychosocial and organizational work exposures, including the duration of computer work, and (2) the moderating effect of psychosocial work exposures on the relation between computer work and UEMSP. METHODS: Using 2007-2008 Québec survey data on 2478 workers, we carried out gender-stratified multivariable logistic regression modeling and two-way interaction analyses. RESULTS: In both genders, odds of UEMSP were higher with exposure to high physical work demands and emotionally demanding work. Additionally among women, UEMSP were associated with duration of occupational computer exposure, sexual harassment, tense situations when dealing with clients, high quantitative demands and lack of prospects for promotion, and among men, with low coworker support, episodes of unemployment, low job security and contradictory work demands. Among women, the effect of computer work on UEMSP was considerably increased in the presence of emotionally demanding work, and may also be moderated by low recognition at work, contradictory work demands, and low supervisor support. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the relations between UEMSP and computer work are moderated by psychosocial work exposures and that the relations between working conditions and UEMSP are somewhat different for each gender, highlighting the complexity of these relations and the importance of considering gender.

Cognitive capacity similarly predicts insight into symptoms in first- and multiple-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Lack of insight is a frequent characteristic of psychotic disorders, both in patients who recently experienced a first episode of psychosis (FEP) and those who experience recurrent multiple episodes (MEP). Insight is a multifaceted construct: its clinical form notably includes the unawareness of being ill, of symptoms, and of the need for treatment. Cognitive capacity is among the key determinants of insight into symptoms, but less is known about whether stage of illness (FEP vs. MEP) moderates this association. METHODS: Our aim is to evaluate the association between cognitive capacity and symptom unawareness using structural equation modeling and moderated multiple regression. A total of 193 FEP and MEP patients were assessed using the CogState battery and the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. RESULTS: Analyses suggest that cognitive capacity accounts for a relatively small proportion of the total variation in symptom unawareness (6.4%). There was no evidence to suggest a moderating effect of stage of illness on this association. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of general cognitive capacity on symptom unawareness is relatively small, and this basic relation was unrelated to stage of illness. It is possible that stage of illness could moderate this association only for certain facets of insight not assessed in this study (e.g., unawareness of the need for treatment).

Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.

Following a review of extant reporting standards for scientific publication, and reviewing 10 years of experience since publication of the first set of reporting standards by the American Psychological Association (APA; APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008), the APA Working Group on Quantitative Research Reporting Standards recommended some modifications to the original standards. Examples of modifications include division of hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions into 3 groupings (primary, secondary, and exploratory) and some changes to the section on meta-analysis. Several new modules are included that report standards for observational studies, clinical trials, longitudinal studies, replication studies, and N-of-1 studies. In addition, standards for analytic methods with unique characteristics and output (structural equation modeling and Bayesian analysis) are included. These proposals were accepted by the Publications and Communications Board of APA and supersede the standards included in the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010). (PsycINFO Database Record

Intent of reporting standards: Reply to Rossiter (2018).

In this reply to Rossiter (2018), we note that the goal of developing Journal Article Reporting Standards has been to specify the kinds of information that should be provided to the readers of scientific articles in order to allow maximal understanding of the work being reported-in the case of psychometrics, information that demonstrates the underlying adequacy of the measures used in the research being reported. Although we illustrate some kinds of items that might be utilized to make these demonstrations, the illustrations are not proscriptive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).