Association of Different Forms of Child Maltreatment With Peer Victimization in Mexican Children and Adolescents.

Objective: To examine the relationship between exposure to multiple forms of child abuse and neglect within the family context and peer victimization at school, accounting for the moderator effect of sex and educational level. Methods: Two thousand four hundred fifteen children and adolescents, aged 9 to 15 years, attending public schools in Mexico completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form and a modified version of the Olweus' Bully/Victim Questionnaire. We used linear regression models to assess the association of five different forms of child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and emotional and physical negligence) with three forms of peer victimization (direct, indirect, and cyberbullying). Results: Direct forms of child abuse within the family (i.e., emotional, physical, and sexual abuse), but not neglect, were significantly and positively associated with a risk for peer victimization. In the fully adjusted models, emotional abuse was significantly associated with the three types of peer victimization: [indirect b = 0.48, t = 6.75, p < 0.001, direct (b = 0.47, t = 4.89, p < 0.001), and cyberbullying (b = 0.85, t = 5.45, p < 0. 001)]; while physical abuse was positive and significantly associated with direct victimization (b = 0.29, t = 3.28, p < 0.001). Boys suffering from sexual abuse within the family context showed higher levels of all subtypes of peer victimization. Students attending secondary school who suffered from sexual abuse showed higher levels of indirect victimization than did students attending primary schools. Conclusion: Child abuse within the family context seems to be associated with the risk of peer victimization. Preventive strategies to address bullying and promote resilience should take family factors into account. Interventions for high-risk families might be useful to prevent child multi-victimization.

Venturas y desventuras del radiólogo de guardia / Fortunes and misfortunes of the radiologist on-call

El trabajo del radiólogo de guardia no es fácil, pero además el número de urgencias radiológicas se ha incrementado a lo largo de los años. Esto no sólo se debe a la gran cantidad de personas que acuden a los Servicios de Urgencias, sino también al aumento del espectro de exploraciones radiológicas para evaluar casos urgentes. Así, el gran volumen de pacientes como el elevado número de doctores, enfermeras y personal sanitario dando diversas instrucciones en la atención pueden transmitir, en ocasiones, a los Servicios de Emergencias la apariencia de un pseudo "campo de batalla". En este escenario, las vivencias del radiólogo de guardia, sus venturas y desventuras, resultan tan positivas como negativas. En este artículo, se presentan y discuten los factores y posibles situaciones problemáticas con mayor implicancia en el trabajo del radiólogo de guardia, así como también las potenciales medidas para abordarlas, evitarlas o resolverlas.

The job of the radiologist on-call is not easy and the number of radiological emergencies have increased over the years, but not only to the larger number of patients visiting the emergency departments, but also to broader spectrum of radiological's examinations requiered to asses emergency cases. The greater volume of patients, together with a larger number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals, giving diverse instructions for patients care, can at times give the emergency room the appearance of a pseudo-battlefield. The different experiences of the on-call radiologist in such setting can be both positive and negative. The contributing factors and possible measures for dealing with, avoiding or solving potentially problematic situations which, in turn, may create major implications for the on-call radiologist in carrying out his work are presented and discussed in this article.

Un siglo de investigaciones sobre masculinidad y feminidad: una revisión crítica / A century of research on masculinity and femininity: a critical review

El estudio psicológico de la masculinidad (M) y la feminidad (F), a lo largo del siglo XX, muestra dos planteamientos bien distintos. En la primera mitad se parte del continuo bipolar, mientras que en la segunda predomina la concepción de dos dimensiones ortogonales. Los estudios empíricos realizados en diversos países con las escalas de M y F clásicas manifiestan que los datos no apoyan ni el presupuesto del continuo bipolar, ni la estrecha relación entre masculinidad/varón y feminidad/mujer como patrón único de desarrollo funcional, ni la validez convergente de los distintos instrumentos de evaluación. A su vez, los resultados obtenidos con las nuevas escalas de M y F ponen de manifiesto que parece más coherente hablar de multidimensionalidad que de bidimensionalidad, que las distintas escalas no son equivalentes y que se adolece de una falta de teoría capaz de guiar la elaboración de nuevos instrumentos de valoración de estos constructos. Al inicio del siglo XXI, tras la evaluación crítica de lo realizado a lo largo de los casi cien años anteriores, nos encontramos ante una duda esencial: ¿merece la pena seguir hablando de M y F dentro del ámbito científico y, más concretamente, dentro del área de la psicología? (AU)

The psychological study of masculinity (M) and femininity (F) throughout the twentieth century shows two very different approaches. In the first half of last century, authors try to test the bipolar continuum hypothesis, whereas during the second half, the hypothesis of two orthogonal dimensions predominates. Empirical studies carried out in various countries with the classic M and F scales show that the data do not support: a) the bipolar continuum hypothesis; b) the close relationship between masculinity/men and femininity/ women as the single pattern of functional development; and c) the convergence validity of the different assessment instruments. In turn, the empirical results obtained with the new M and F scales show: a) the multidimensionality instead of bi-dimensionality of the different scales; b) that the different M and F scales are not equivalent; and c) that there is no theory capable of guiding the development of new scales to assess these constructs. At the beginning of the 21st century, after the critical evaluation of the studies carried out during about 100 years, we face a critical question: Is it worthwhile to continue talking about M and F within the fi eld of science and, more specifically, within the field of psychology? (AU)

[A century of research on masculinity and femininity: a critical review]. / Un siglo de investigaciones sobre masculinidad y feminidad: una revisión crítica.

The psychological study of masculinity (M) and femininity (F) throughout the twentieth century shows two very different approaches. In the first half of last century, authors try to test the bipolar continuum hypothesis, whereas during the second half, the hypothesis of two orthogonal dimensions predominates. Empirical studies carried out in various countries with the classic M and F scales show that the data do not support: a) the bipolar continuum hypothesis; b) the close relationship between masculinity/men and femininity/women as the single pattern of functional development; and c) the convergence validity of the different assessment instruments. In turn, the empirical results obtained with the new M and F scales show: a) the multidimensionality instead of bi-dimensionality of the different scales; b) that the different M and F scales are not equivalent; and c) that there is no theory capable of guiding the development of new scales to assess these constructs. At the beginning of the 21st century, after the critical evaluation of the studies carried out during about 100 years, we face a critical question: is it worthwhile to continue talking about M and F within the field of science and, more specifically, within the field of psychology?