Background: The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.Method: We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.Results: Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.Conclusion: We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.
Runners often sustain lower extremity injuries (19-79%) (van Gent et al, 2007). In a theoretical model it has been described that a disturbance in perceived stress and recovery can increase the risk of sustaining an injury (Williams & Andersen, 1998). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate changes in perceived stress and recovery preceding an injury of competitive runners.Methods: Twenty-four competitive runners were monitored over one full training season (46 weeks). Every week, the runners filled an on-line RESTQ-sport (Nederhof et al, 2008). Furthermore, runners and their coaches kept a log with injuries and physical complaints. A non-traumatic injury was defined as any pain, soreness or injury that was not caused by trauma and resulted from training and led to a decrease in training duration or training intensity for at least one week (Jacobsson et al, 2013). Because baseline levels of perception of stress and recovery vary largely between runners, the 19 scales of the RESTQ-Sport were normalized to Z-scores based on the runner’s individual average and standard deviation of the whole season (excl. injured periods). The normalized scores of 1, 2 and 3 weeks before the first sustained injury were compared to 0, which is the average normalized score, by repeated measures ANOVA’s.Results: Twenty-two runners sustained a non-traumatic lower extremity injury. Eight of these runners filled out the RESTQ-Sport all 3 weeks preceding the injury and their data was used for further analysis. The injuries sustained were non-traumatic injuries of the knee, Achilles tendon, ankle, foot and shin. It was shown that 1 week preceding the injury, runners scored lower than the average normalized score on “Success” (Z-score: -0.68±0.62) and 2 weeks preceding the injury runners scored higher than their average on “Fitness/Injuries” (Z-score: 1.04±1.12).Discussion: A decrease in perceived success may be a marker to predict a non-traumatic lower extremity injury. Also an increase in the perception of muscle ache, soreness, pain and vulnerability to injury (“Fitness/Injury”) preceded injuries. Thereby, monitoring changes in individual stress and recovery may help to prevent non-traumatic injuries.
The present study focuses on the level of stress a teacher perceives when dealing with the most behaviorally challenging student in his or her classroom. To measure stress in Dutch elementary classrooms, a sample was drawn of 582 teachers. Two questions concerning this relation between student and teacher will be addressed. First of all, we focus on background variables of teachers and students as sources of variation in explaining the magnitude of challenging student behavior and the associated level of stress teachers experience. The second topic of this paper is to accommodate the potentially stressful relationship between student and teacher in a wider network of surrounding variables, which are, Self-efficacy, Negative affect, Autonomy in taking decisions, and Support amongst colleagues. To evaluate the presence of challenging behavior, the behavior of the student is related to more general variables like student responsibility, class size and ratio of boys to girls. We close our paper by assessing the validity of the studied relationship between teacher and student with respect to possible burnout.
