Search

While research tends to focus on understanding risk factors associated with adverse childhood and adolescent experiences, there is growing empirical support within the field of human services to also focus on strengths and protective factors that bolster resilience in life. This study investigated the psychometrics of the Resilience Protective Factors Checklist (RPFC), which is a questionnaire that assists in the identification of protective factors empirically linked to resilience and positive outcomes. In addition, associations between protective factors, childhood adversity, and quality of life outcomes were examined. Participants were undergraduate college students ( n = 1,256). The results revealed good psychometric properties for the RPFC and the factor analysis supported the resilience structural model of three interrelated areas of protective factors - Individual, Family, and Community influences. All three areas of protection were positively correlated with all four domains of positive life outcomes (physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and a healthy environment) and negatively correlated with adverse childhood experiences. RPFC’s individual protective factors positively predicted physical health and psychological health outcomes, while the community protective factors positively predicted environmental health outcomes. In addition, the RPFC’s family protective factors moderated the path between adverse childhood experiences and social relationships. That is, for individuals who have experienced more adverse childhood experiences, those with higher levels of RPFC family protective factors had positive social relationship outcomes, while those with lower levels of family protective factors had negative social relationship outcomes. These findings lend support for the utilization of assessment measures for identifying and promoting protective factors that can buffer life adversity and heighten resilient positive outcomes.

The increasingly collaborative nature of knowledge-based work requires workplaces to support both dynamic interactions and concentrated work, both of which are critical for collaboration performance. Given the prevalence of open-plan settings, this requirement has created new challenges for workplace design. Therefore, an understanding of the relationship between the spatial characteristics of workplace settings and the support for collaboration that is perceived by office workers is valuable and timely. Based on a study of 308 office workers in 27 office spaces, this article examines the relationship between a series of workplace spatial characteristics and the support that is perceived by the occupants for collaborations. The spatial characteristics that were examined included individual workstation characteristics that were derived from the literature and a new set of floor-plan layout variables that highlighted shared spaces that are critical for a variety of formal and informal collaboration activities at work. The key characteristics of workplace spatial settings that were associated with the support that the occupants perceived for collaboration were the distance from workstation to meeting space, the distance from workstation to shared service area, the distance from workstation to kitchen/coffee area, and the percentage of floor space that was dedicated to shared services and amenities.

The value of effective collaboration has become increasingly critical for organizational performance and agility. Along with technical and managerial strategies, the workspace spatial environment needs to be recognized and studied for its impact on collaboration and interactive behavior at work. Most spatial parameters studied in the workplace research literature are workstation-scale characteristics. However, these may not sufficiently describe the variety of shared spaces in which collaborative work and interactions take place. Based on a two-year multiple-site field study of workplace settings, this paper explores the space typology of a wide spectrum of formal and informal collaborative spaces, and it introduces a new set of layout-scale quantitative indices to describe the amount and distribution of collaborative spaces in a workplace. This research tested layout-scale spatial variables and compared them with workstation-scale variables in order to determine how well these variables predict the occupants' perception of the support from their workplace spatial environment for collaborative work and the distractions from others' interactive behavior in the work environment. The design implications of the findings are explored, and future research directions are identified.

The growing demand for new approaches to support the changing nature of work and organizational structure has spawned innovations from both manufacturers and space designers. The result is a multitude of new concepts and designs, but little data on how well and under what circumstances these innovations are effective. New products, technologies, and concepts are frequently implemented without knowledge of their impacts on work, much less their value to high-level organizational goals. The measurement most commonly used is still cost, or even less sensibly, square feet. To remedy this shortcoming, the U.S. General Service Administration's Public Buildings Service assembled an interagency research team and recognized academic and private sector leaders to identify "best practice" workplace strategies and the research tools holding the most promise for evaluating their impact. They evaluated the linkages among organizational performance (Business), the physical attributes of the workspace (Building), and the changes in work processes, perceptions, and attitudes that result from changes to this physical space (Behavior). This article provides an overview of the GSA program and preliminary results from two pilot projects.

How can the physical design of the workplace enhance collaborations without compromising an individual's productivity? The body of research on the links between physical space and collaboration in knowledge work settings is reviewed. Collaboration is viewed as a system of behaviours that includes both social and solitary work. The social aspects of collaboration are discussed in terms of three dimensions: awareness, brief interaction and collaboration (working together). Current knowledge on the links between space and the social as well as individual aspects of collaborative work is reviewed. The central conflict of collaboration is considered: how to design effectively to provide a balance between the need to interact and the need to work effectively by oneself. The body of literature shows that features and attributes of space can be manipulated to increase awareness, interaction and collaboration. However, doing so frequently has negative impacts on individual work as a result of increases in noise di...

The association between conduct disorder (CD) and the construct of avoidance of responsibility was investigated in a sample of junior and senior high school-aged adolescents. Each adolescents CD symptomatology was determined using a self-report checklist keyed to DSM-IV symptoms. In addition, participants completed an avoidance of responsibility measure which assessed strategies adolescents utilize to avoid responsibility for their inappropriate behaviors. Participants also completed the Nowicki–Strickland Locus of Control Scale. Based on analysis of the avoidance of responsibility measure the Powell Avoidance of Responsibility Scale (PARS) was constructed. The results indicated that adolescents identified as CD endorsed significantly more avoidance of responsibility strategies and significantly more external locus of control responses compared to non-CD participants. The PARS accounted for 32% of the variance in the number of CD symptoms. Implications for the treatment and prevention of CD are discussed.

We investigated the association between ‘Avoidance of Responsibility’ and Disruptive Behavior Disorder symptoms (Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder) in a sample of college students. Each subject's Disruptive Behavior Disorder symptomatology was determined using a self-report symptom checklist. In addition, subjects completed the Avoidance of Responsibility Scale which assesses the different strategies individuals utilize to avoid responsibility for their inappropriate behaviors. Results indicated that the subjects with relatively more Disruptive Behavior Disorder symptoms scored significantly higher on the Avoidance of Responsibility Scale compared to those with relatively few symptoms. It was also found that four specific responsibility avoiding strategies accounted for 24% of the variance in Disruptive Behavior Disorder symptoms: having an immoral attitude (e.g. lying); attributing inappropriate behavior to past victimization; showing no remorse for inappropriate behavior; and claiming ignorance about the impact of the inappropriate behavior. Implications for the treatment and prevention of Disruptive Behavior Disorders are discussed.