Development and validation of the physician self-efficacy to manage emotional challenges Scale (PSMEC).

BACKGROUND: Medical students experience emotional challenges during their undergraduate education, often related to work-based learning. Consequently, they may experience feelings of uncertainty and self-doubt, which can negatively affect their well-being. Therefore, it is crucial to support students' development of their ability to manage distressful situations. Self-efficacy beliefs may be a central aspect of supporting them in this development, and have been shown to relate to resilient factors such as students' motivation, learning, and well-being. METHODS: We constructed a scale to measure medical students' physician self-efficacy to manage emotional challenges during work-based learning, the PSMEC scale. The aim of the present study was to evaluate some of the psychometric properties of the PSMEC scale. The scale consists of 17 items covering five subscales: (1) medical knowledge and competence, (2) communication with difficult patients and delivering bad news, (3) being questioned and challenged, (4) educative competence in patient encounters, and (5) ability to establish and maintain relationships with healthcare professionals. Data were collected from 655 medical students from all seven medical schools in Sweden. To investigate the scale's dimensionality and measurement invariance with regard to gender and time in education, single and multiple group confirmatory factor models were estimated using techniques suitable for ordered categorical data. Measures of Cronbach's alpha were calculated to evaluate internal consistency. RESULTS: The scale showed good internal consistency on both the global dimension and the five subdimensions of self-efficacy. In addition, the scale was shown to be measurement invariant across genders and times in education, indicating that the scale means of male and female medical students and the scale means of students at the middle and end of their education can be compared. CONCLUSIONS: The physician self-efficacy to manage emotional challenges scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, with regards to dimensionality, internal consistency, and measurement invariance relating to gender and time in education, and this study supports the usefulness of this scale when measuring self-efficacy in relation to emotional challenges.

A novel approach to model cumulative stress: Area under the s-factor curve.

OBJECTIVE: Using a large longitudinal sample of adults from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study, the present study extended a recently developed hierarchical model to determine how best to model the accumulation of stressors, and to determine whether the rate of change in stressors or traditional composite scores of stressors are stronger predictors of health outcomes. METHOD: We used factor analysis to estimate a stress-factor score and then, to operationalize the accumulation of stressors we examined five approaches to aggregating information about repeated exposures to multiple stressors. The predictive validity of these approaches was then assessed in relation to different health outcomes. RESULTS: The prediction of chronic conditions, body mass index, difficulty with activities of daily living, executive function, and episodic memory later in life was strongest when the accumulation of stressors was modeled using total area under the curve (AUC) of estimated factor scores, compared to composite scores that have traditionally been used in studies of cumulative stress, as well as linear rates of change. CONCLUSIONS: Like endogenous, biological markers of stress reactivity, AUC for individual trajectories of self-reported stressors shows promise as a data reduction technique to model the accumulation of stressors in longitudinal studies. Overall, our results indicate that considering different quantitative models is critical to understanding the sequelae and predictive power of psychosocial stressors from midlife to late adulthood.

The Flynn effect and cognitive decline among americans aged 65 years and older.

To contribute to our understanding of cohort differences and the Flynn effect in the cognitive decline among older Americans, this study aims to compare rates of cognitive decline between two birth cohorts within a study of older Americans and to examine the importance of medical and demographic confounders. Analyses used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2011-2019), which recruited older Americans in 2011 and again in 2015 who were then followed for 5 years. We employed mixed-effect models to examine the linear and quadratic main and interaction effects of year of birth while adjusting for covariates such as annual round, sex/gender, education, race/ethnicity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, test unfamiliarity, and survey design. We analyzed data from 11,167 participants: 7,325 from 2011 to 2015 and 3,842 from 2015 to 2019. The cohort recruited in 2015 was born, on average, 5.33 years later than that recruited in 2011 and had higher functioning than the one recruited in 2011 across all observed cognitive domains that persisted after adjusting for covariates. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, a 1-year increase in year of birth was associated with increased episodic memory (ß = 0.045, SE = 0.001, p < .001), orientation (ß = 0.034, SE = 0.001, p < .001), and executive function (ß = 0.036, SE = 0.001, p < .001). Participants born 1 year later had slower rates of decline in episodic memory (ß = 0.004, SE = 0.000, p < .001), orientation (ß = 0.003, SE = 0.000, p < .001), and executive function (ß = 0.001, SE = 0.000, p = .002). Additionally, sex/gender modified this relationship for episodic memory (-0.007, SE = 0.002, p < .001), orientation (-0.005, SE = 0.002, p = .008), and executive function (-0.008, SE = 0.002, p < .001). These results demonstrate the persistence of the Flynn effect in old age across cognitive domains and identified a deceleration in the rate of cognitive decline across cognitive domains. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).