Improving Reactions to Forced-Choice Personality Measures in Simulated Job Application Contexts Through the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs

There is a wealth of evidence justifying the use of personality assessments for selection. Nonetheless, some reluctance to use these assessments stems from their perceived vulnerability to response distortion (i.e., faking) and the somewhat negative applicant reactions they elicit, when compared to other assessments. Adopting a forced-choice personality assessment format appears to alleviate the former problem but exacerbates the latter. In this study, we introduce basic psychological needs as a theoretical foundation to develop interventions to improve reactions to forced-choice personality assessments. We propose that the forced-choice format impedes respondents’ desire to respond to items in a preferred way, interfering with autonomy need satisfaction, and constrains respondents’ opportunity to show their capabilities, interfering with competence need satisfaction. In this pre-registered between-subjects experiment (N = 1565), we investigated two modifications to a ranked forced-choice personality questionnaire and compared these to traditional forced-choice and single-stimulus (Likert) formatted questionnaires. One modification, where participants could write a free-text response following the assessment, did not show significant effects on reactions. The second modification allowed participants to view all items they had ranked last (first) and then identify any the participant believed in fact described them well (poorly). That modification positively affected perceived autonomy- and competence-support, and fairness perceptions, bridging approximately half of the gap between reactions to forced-choice and single-stimulus assessment formats. This study suggests that a modification to forced-choice personality questionnaires may improve applicant reactions and that basic psychological needs theory may be a fruitful lens through which to further understand reactions to assessments

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Improving Applicant Reactions to Forced-Choice Personality Measures through the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs

There is a wealth of evidence justifying the use of personality assessments for selection. Nonetheless, some reluctance to use these assessments stems from their perceived vulnerability to response distortion (i.e., faking) and the somewhat negative applicant reactions they elicit, when compared to other assessments. Adopting a forced-choice personality assessment format appears to alleviate the former problem but exacerbates the latter. In this study, we introduce basic psychological needs as a theoretical foundation to develop interventions to improve reactions to forced-choice personality assessments. We propose that the forced-choice format impedes respondents’ desire to respond to items in a preferred way, interfering with autonomy need satisfaction, and constrains respondents’ opportunity to show their capabilities, interfering with competence need satisfaction. In this pre-registered between-subjects experiment (N = 1565), we investigated two modifications to a ranked forced-choice personality questionnaire and compared these to traditional forced-choice and single-stimulus (Likert) formatted questionnaires. One modification, where participants could write a free-text response following the assessment, did not show significant effects on reactions. The second modification allowed participants to view all items they had ranked last (first) and then identify any the participant believed in fact described them well (poorly). That modification positively affected perceived autonomy- and competence-support, and fairness perceptions, bridging approximately half of the gap between forced-choice and single-stimulus assessment formats. This study suggests that a modification to forced-choice personality questionnaires may improve applicant reactions and that basic psychological needs theory may be a fruitful lens through which to further understand reactions to assessments

Eumycetoma of the hand caused by Leptosphaeria tompkinsii and refractory to medical therapy with voriconazole

We report on the first case of eumycetoma caused by the organism Leptosphaeria tompkinsii to be diagnosed and possibly acquired within the United Kingdom. Conventional culture of fungal grains and surgical tissue specimens was negative and the diagnosis was achieved using panfungal polymerase chain reaction and sequencing technology. Despite limited surgical resection and prolonged antifungal therapy with voriconazole, the patient developed progressive disease with mycetoma bone involvement. This case highlights the usefulness of molecular diagnostic techniques in eumycetoma where organisms may fail to grow with conventional culture or be difficult to identify morphologically. It also reminds us that eumycetoma is a difficult infection to treat and despite optimism regarding the efficacy of the newer triazole antifungals in this condition, treatment failures may still occur