Personal and Group Environment Factors of Water Polo Players

This study examined to see if Division I female water polo players (n = 113) had a distinct personality profile when compared to their counterpart of other female college students (n = 170). Also, this study analyzed to see the impact personality traits and team cohesion variables had on overall athletic satisfaction in female water polo players. The measures used were as follows: for personality, the Personal Style Inventory for College Students (PSI, Lounsbury & Gibson, 2008); for team cohesion, Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ, Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) ; and for athletic satisfaction, Athletes Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ, Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998). The results looking at the differences between means and effect sizes in regard to the Big Five Personality traits in water polo players and other college students showed a significant difference in 3 out of the 5 traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness). Then, when looking at overall athletic satisfaction in their athletic experience a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. The Big Five Personality traits only accounted for 7% of the variance (statistically insignificant change in R2 [coefficient of determination], p = .16), while the four team cohesion measures accounted for 55% (p \u3c .001) of the variance, a large effect. In particular, a part correlation showed that significant results between athletic satisfaction and Individual attraction to the group-Task (ATG-T, rpart [part correlation]= .37, p \u3c .001) and Group Integration-Task (GI-T, rpart [part correlation]= .29, p \u3c .001). These findings have implications to help players and coaches understand if they would be a good fit for a Division I water polo team and to understand how to best make a team successful. Future research can also be done to see if these results are generalizable to other similar team sports as well (i.e. soccer, hockey, etc.)

An Investigation of Gender Bias in a Career Assessment for a STEM Field

This study examined whether career counselors differ in their recommendations for a STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, mathematics) career (specifically, computer scientist) based on the gender of the client. In a randomized two group experimental design with a qualitative component, a fictitious student bio was created in order to understand the possible conceptualization differences seen between career counselors in regards to gender bias in the STEM fields. The primary research questions looked at whether participants were less likely to recommend the female student, compared to the male, to a STEM related career and to pursue graduate school. A secondary research question was utilized to investigate the thought process underlying counselors’ recommendations. Participants (n=129) ranged from ages 23-71, were primarily female (78.3%, n=101), had a Master’s degree in a helping profession (70.5%, n=91), and were White (75.2%, n=97). Results of the primary research questions through a one-way MANOVA were seen as non-significant (n=129), Wilks’ λ = .992, F (3, 125) = 0.353, p = 0.787, partial eta squared = .008. The qualitative themes identified in the participants’ responses for their reasoning for the “top 3” and “bottom 3” careers recommended were: Student Profile Components, Strong Interest Inventory Results, Assumed Student Traits & Activities, and Further Exploration Needed. Interpretation of these results shows that the use of a standardized measure provides a protective factor against the implicit gender bias typically seen in other areas of academia and the workplace for women. The follow-up question also revealed, that while the majority of participants showed no gender bias differences in their recommendations, they also failed to consider gender in the conceptualization of the student profile. This shows a “gender blind” component that does not follow the multicultural awareness approach that counselors are currently trained in and what is necessary if counselors desire to help support females interested in STEM. Future studies should investigate career counselor bias utilizing different STEM careers and possibly an in-person interaction in order to pull at different biases and more intersectional identity elements (i.e., race and gender)

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health