Search results

Effects of music interventions on stress-related outcomes

Music interventions are used for stress reduction in a variety of settings because of the positive effects of music listening on both physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, and hormonal levels) and psychological stress experiences (e.g., restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness). To summarize the growing body of empirical research, two multilevel meta-analyses of 104 RCTs, containing 327 effect sizes and 9,617 participants, were performed to assess the strength of the effects of music interventions on both physiological and psychological stress-related outcomes, and to test the potential moderators of the intervention effects. Results showed that music interventions had an overall significant effect on stress reduction in both physiological (d = .380) and psychological (d = .545) outcomes. Further, moderator analyses showed that the type of outcome assessment moderated the effects of music interventions on stress-related outcomes. Larger effects were found on heart rate (d = .456), compared to blood pressure (d = .343) and hormone levels (d = .349). Implications for stress-reducing music interventions are discussed.

Regulation in Europe after the financial crisis: patterns of up-loading and down-loading of regulatory solutions

Multilevel boundary crossing

Symposiumbijdrage conferentie EARLI SIG 14, 11-14 september 2018, Genève Learning across the contexts of school and the workplace is highly relevant to the VET-sector. This contribution analyses these cross-contextual learning processes with three key issues in mind: (1) guidance by vocational educators, (2) assessment of students’ development and (3) design of VET-learning environments. Guidance, assessment and overarching VET-curriculum designs form the basis for constructive alignment as an approach to optimize conditions for high quality cross-contextual learning processes. We used the theoretical framework of boundary crossing to clarify the complex, multilevel nature of these key issues.

Where, When and With Whom: Cannabis Use, Settings and Self-Regulation Rules

This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.

Cross-classified multilevel models improved standard error estimates of covariates in clinical outcomes – a simulation study

ObjectiveTo compare estimates of effect and variability resulting from standard linear regression analysis and hierarchical multilevel analysis with cross-classified multilevel analysis under various scenarios.Study design and settingWe performed a simulation study based on a data structure from an observational study in clinical mental health care. We used a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach to simulate 18 scenarios, varying sample sizes, cluster sizes, effect sizes and between group variances. For each scenario, we performed standard linear regression, multilevel regression with random intercept on patient level, multilevel regression with random intercept on nursing team level and cross-classified multilevel analysis.ResultsApplying cross-classified multilevel analyses had negligible influence on the effect estimates. However, ignoring cross-classification led to underestimation of the standard errors of the covariates at the two cross-classified levels and to invalidly narrow confidence intervals. This may lead to incorrect statistical inference. Varying sample size, cluster size, effect size and variance had no meaningful influence on these findings.ConclusionIn case of cross-classified data structures, the use of a cross-classified multilevel model helps estimating valid precision of effects, and thereby, support correct inferences.

Returning to the Origins of Multilevel Regulation

The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.