Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeDespite the proliferation of work–family research, a thorough understanding of family role status changes (e.g. the gaining of elder or child caregiving responsibilities) remain under-theorized and under-examined. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize various forms of family role status changes and examine the ways in which these changes influence various employee outcomes.Design/methodology/approachData were collected as part of the work–family health study. Using a longitudinal, three-wave study with two-time lags of 6 months (n = 151 family role status changes; n = 392 individuals with family role stability), this study uses one-way analysis of variance to compare mean differences across groups and multilevel modeling to examine the predictive effects of family role status changes.FindingsOverall, experiences of employees undergoing a family role status change did not differ significantly from employees whose family role status remained stable over the same 12-month period. Separation/divorce predicted higher levels of family-to-work conflict.Originality/valueThe work raises important considerations for organizational science and human resource policy research to better understand the substantive effects of family role status changes on employee well-being.

This study assessed differences in employment outcomes among cancer survivors using data from a nationally representative sample. The 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data and the 2011 MEPS Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement representing 3,360,465 people in the US population were analyzed to evaluate factors associated with unemployment among cancer survivors during the 5 years following diagnosis and treatment. The sample included adults 1) diagnosed with cancer within 5 years prior to survey completion and 2) engaged in paid employment since diagnosis. Individuals diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer (n=33) were excluded from analyses. Data of 221 cancer survivors were used to identify factors associated with employment status at the time respondents were employed (n=155) vs unemployed (n=66). Results of bivariate analyses indicated that unemployed survivors were older, more likely to be women, more likely to be uninsured at the time of cancer diagnosis, and to report lower incomes than cancer survivors who continue to be employed. Unemployed survivors were more likely than employed survivors to have had anxiety about being forced to retire or quit early when they were employed because of cancer and to report cancer-related interference with physical and mental aspects of their job tasks; unemployed survivors also took less paid time off and were less likely to change to a flexible job schedule when they were employed. In multiple logistic regression analyses, worry about being forced to retire (protective), worry that cancer recurrence will interfere with home or work responsibilities (risk), and change to a flexible work schedule (risk) following cancer diagnosis were associated with unemployment after controlling for demographic differences between employed and unemployed cancer survivors. Findings of this study highlight the extent to which the challenges of managing the cancer-work interface create challenges to employment among cancer survivors and may lead to long-term unemployment among cancer survivors. Future studies should evaluate the strategies that the survivors could use to manage the cancer-work interface during cancer treatment to attain medical, psychological, social, and employment outcomes.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telework was an established discretionary practice with a considerable amount of research. However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced people who had never worked from home before to do so. Our two-wave descriptive investigation provides a historical snapshot of what approximately 400 teleworkers experienced in the first two to three months of the pandemic. We explored how this experience differed for those who had previously teleworked, those who had children in their home, and those who had supervisory responsibilities. The data exposed telework challenges and pandemic-specific challenges. The results support job crafting theories that teleworkers proactively implement strategies to adjust their boundaries and relationships to meet their need (Biron et al., Personnel Review , 2022 ). The data also revealed that employees were still struggling two months later, despite implementing strategies like self-care, taking breaks, and psychological reframing. This research provides detailed evidence of how pandemic-induced telework is not the same as traditional telework and some initial evidence of the pandemic-induced telework adjustment time period.

This qualitative research contributes to the telework research literature by identifying and categorizing employee motives for teleworking. Motives for telework contextualize teleworking behavior, represent proximal telework outcomes, and serve as potential boundary conditions for telework-outcome relationships. Role identity theory (Burke & Tully Social Forces, 55 (4), 881-897, 1977 ) and the uncertainty-reduction hypothesis (Hogg & Terry Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140, 2000 ) suggest that motives may be driven by role salience and the ability to meet work and nonwork demands. In this research, we sought to identify a comprehensive list of motives as well as reconcile the wide range of categories and labels given to telework motives in the literature. We asked two independent samples of workers comprised of two subsamples of teleworkers ( n 1  = 195; n 2  = 97) and a subsample of nonteleworkers ( n 3  = 947) why they telework or would like to telework. A total of 2504 reasons were gathered across the three subsamples. Most respondents reported multiple reasons, especially when encouraged to list all of their reasons. After distinguishing preconditions from motives to telework, ten categories emerged from the qualitative data with “avoid commute” emerging as the most frequently reported motive. Other frequently reported motives included “tend to family demands” and “productivity.” Additional motives are discussed along with implications for telework research and policy development and implementation.

Given the rapid growth of intervention research in the occupational health sciences and related fields (e.g. work-family), we propose that occupational health scientists adopt an “alpha, beta, gamma” change approach when evaluating intervention efficacy. Interventions can affect absolute change in constructs directly (alpha change), changes in the scales used to assess change (beta change) or redefinitions of the construct itself (gamma change). Researchers should consider the extent to which they expect their intervention to affect each type of change and select evaluation approaches accordingly. We illustrate this approach using change data from groups of IT professionals and health care workers participating in the STAR intervention, designed by the Work Family Health Network. STAR was created to effect change in employee work-family conflict via supervisor family-supportive behaviors and schedule control. We hypothesize that it will affect change via all three change approaches—gamma, beta, and alpha. Using assessment techniques from measurement equivalence approaches, we find results consistent with some gamma and beta change in the IT company due to the intervention; our results suggest that not accounting for such change could affect the evaluation of alpha change. We demonstrate that using a tripartite model of change can help researchers more clearly specify intervention change targets and processes. This will enable the assessment of change in a way that has stronger fidelity between the theories used and the outcomes of interest. Our research has implications for how to assess change using a broader change framework, which employs measurement equivalence approaches in order to advance the design and deployment of more effective interventions in occupational settings.

[...]we contend that it is also important for these and other stakeholder groups (e.g., clinicians, employees) to recognize the conceptual distinctions between the models, as well as the appropriate roles of those involved in assessment. Since the inception of the categorical model of personality disorders that was introduced in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980), critics have argued that the model sacrificed validity in the service of increasing reliability. [...]the general impairment in personality functioning is considered a core component of a personality disorder, with the maladaptive traits reflecting individual differences in the phenotypic manifestation of the personality disorder. [...]the MMPI was developed using a criterion-keying strategy, resulting in item content that may lack face validity but is empirically related to certain psychiatric content areas. According to Section 9.02(a) of the APA ethics codes, “Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.”

In the focal article, Ruggs et al. (2016) outline the ways in which psychological theory and research can provide insight into the potential underlying processes behind recent conflict between law enforcement officials and the community. These incidents have led to national questions regarding the training and standard operating procedure of police, as well as society's beliefs about the prevalence of stereotyping. The authors identify how psychological research, and social psychological and industrial–organizational research in particular, can play a role in shaping these issues for organizational practices moving forward.