Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 1 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupational health psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Disability B‑class
Occupational health psychology is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

External links to Newsletters

Iss246, I did not delete any text only a few dead links to club newsletters in the reference section. These links in the reference section were definitely 404 errors. The other links to the same newsletter that are 'active' have been left in the article. Again, NO text from the article has been deleted.

However if you have now somehow 'reactivated' those dead 404 'newsletters links' that were used as primary sources in the reference section of the article restore them.

Otherwise they need to be deleted as Wiki in any case cannot have 404 outdated links. Are there no primary sources you could use either? I am also concerned that your links to the club newsletters. (Again please refer to the Wiki definition of club under professional societies) are advertising the club membership itself. It is a private club (professional society) not a government run Psychology Board for instance. Including direct links on a Misplaced Pages article, an encycolpedic article, to that club newsletter and website, where monetary dues are paid, in my opinion, is dubious at best. However more experienced Wikipedians can make a judgement on this.

—Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 12 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Description of occupational health psychology

The accurate definition or description of "occupational health psychology" seems to be causing some problems. It would certainly help if we can agree on what it is; it might well help if we can clearly identify where we disagree, and come up with an approach that satisfies all editors. I present some statements for your consideration:

It is appropriate, at least in this article, to abbreviate Occupational health psychology as "OHP"; the abbreviation is simply an abbreviation and in context carries exactly the same meaning as the full term.

Activities may be classified as OHP if they are to do with the psychology of health at work. Such activities may also accurately be described as "industrial psychology", "organizational psychology", or other genres of psychology. Overlap between genres is normal and should cause no difficulty; it might be perfectly reasonable to describe a study as "OHP" in one context and as "industrial psychology" in another.

Genres /subdisciplines of psychology may include activities such as academic research, academic conferences, graduate training programs, undergraduate programs, consulting work, individual work, and probably others. While at least one of these activities is essential for any genre to achieve the status of a subdiscipline, a subdiscipline may be considered to exist if only one or two of these activities are demonstrably described as being within it.

In some jurisdictions the personal descriptor "psychologist" is legally protected. There is an analogy with the term "architect" which is legally protected in the UK at least. Non-architects commonly describe themselves as "architectural consultants", and by general agreement what they do is architecture. Similarly, a non-psychologist may do psychology of any genre, so long as they don't describe themselves personally as a psychologist. This has no bearing on the validity of any subdiscipline of either architecture or psychology. Non-architects may contribute to architecture and non-psychologists may contribute to psychology. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Richardkeatinge for your comments and invitation for all editors to discuss in a civil, courteous, respectful manner. I am just unclear as to why Whatamidoing's post with a reliable source that Occupational Health Psychology is a specialization of Health Psychology. I just wonder why it is being duplicated in this article. I look forward to a civil, calm discusion between editors. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The English Misplaced Pages has articles on thousands of subtopics, such as subspecialties. If there is enough material to support a full article, then we write a full article. There is no rule that says every sub-type of health psychology must be in the main Health psychology article, nor is there a rule that says every sub-type of psychology must be in the main Psychology article. In this case, Occupational health psychology happens to meet the criteria for having an entire, stand-alone article dedicated to the subject, and so we therefore have this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying whatamidoing. I understand the rules on this then. I think that there is an issue where confusion currently lies. That is, many people believe occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality as you just stated. If it is, then the Everly quote you used in the health psych article, should state occupational health psychology is a specialization. If not, the source needs to be removed from that article. That's my understanding at least. Can you please give your point of view on this. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You write "occupational health psychology, as you quoted is a specialization, or OHP is a sub-speciality" (my italics). I would see both descriptions, and indeed others, as perfectly appropriate. Do you see them as mutually exclusive, so that OHP could be one or the other but could not be both? I really am having trouble understanding what you mean and would be grateful if you would elucidate on that point, and perhaps the others that I have listed above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Richardkeatinge and Whatamidoing, my original query does seem a bit confusing after re-reading it myself. I do agree with both of your logical comments regarding subspecialties and the practice of psychology. My only point was that the Everly source clearly places occupational health psychology as a specialization within health psychology? However psyc12 states below that occupational health psychology is not a specialization/sub speciality, and a completely "distinct field" should this 1986 source be relied on at all, as a key reliable source, in either this article, or the health psychology article?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some overlap between health psychology and OHP, but they are distinct fields. It would not be correct to say that OHP is just a subarea within health psychology. If you look at the content of textbooks and journals in these fields, there is little overlap.Psyc12 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of long term edits and reliable sources?

I removed the subsection that notes overlap between OHP and I/O psychology. It is redundant because the opening paragraph already notes the link between I/O and OHP, and the hyperlink will take the reader to the I/O article that provides all the details in greater depth. Psyc12 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed links, added some new ones. Removed second link to occupational stress as an earlier link already existed.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was right to remove the double brackets around the Effort-Reward Imbalance model because there is no page devoted to it. It would be good if someone were to start a Misplaced Pages entry devoted to Johannes Siegrist's Effort-Reward Imbalance model. Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just added to the recently edited sentence, to reflect what the 1985 reliable source actually says, so reader is not misled.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We covered this ground already. We should not confuse the reader into thinking OHP is a subdiscipline of health Ψ. Everly also indicated the OHP specialists need public health too. In fact, he did not mention i/o psychology but that was omitted from the sentence I changed. It is enough. The origins of OHP have been established here, we don't need to edit-war about it. We should be satisfied that health Ψ, i/o Ψ, and occupational medicine contributed to the development of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did psyc12 delete richard keatinge's and others editing efforts here please? "This paper has been credited, inaccurately, as the first to use the term.

It is an unimportant minor detail that clogs an already long article. Psyc12 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Richardkeatinge and others added '3 reliable sources' to that important sentence psyc12, explaining a 'major inconsistency' in the literature and origins of 'OHP' Richardkeatinge's edit allowed a NPOV to be presented in the article on that anomaly and was agreed through consensus. You just came in and deleted and 'censored' it for some reason?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 & psyc12, you delete Richardkeatinge's entire sentence 'with 3 reliable sources' attached. It showed a major anomaly in the literature where various authors and texts disagreed entirely as to when and where 'OHP' was invented? Why are you deleting key points est. through consensus instead of allowing NPOV?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a minor point that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. There is no need to call out 3 groups of authors who made an error. My suggestion if you feel strongly Mrm7171 is to ask some other editors to comment here to see if there's consensus one way or the other. Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There already was consensus on that point with numerous editors about 6 months ago and it had 3 reliable sources. The article needs to present NPOV. Misplaced Pages doesn't censor. If it is such a small point, why delete it? Why do you and iss246 care SO much? Why create unnecessary conflict and more 'walls of text' now? Why are you both so personally involved and not neutral on this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's just restore Richardkeatinge's edit and his 3 reliable sources attached please, for the sake of civility?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you are the one arguing about this and making accusations. All I did was answer your question. Psyc12 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Richardkeatinge's edit, developed through consensus 6 months ago, with 3 reliable sources. Will just restore it and let Richardkeatinge look at it later. That sounds fair. Creating a lot of unnecessary text here though over this? Why are you and iss246 so desperately trying to delete that NPOV edit?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of minutiae any bit of which is true based on multiple sources. That doesn't mean minutiae should clog up an encyclopedia article. I am okay if you ask Richardkeatinge, Bilby, and WhatamIdoing to have a look at this matter. They are experienced Wikipedians who have shown an interest in the OHP article in the past. Iss246 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Best we just put Richardkeatinge's sentence & 3 reliable sources 'back in the article' in the meantime, as those editors have not commented yet. You both have not said why it matters so much? or why you are both so vehemently opposed to its inclusion? It was developed through consensus 6 months ago?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a short sentence but very well written by Richardkeatinge, concisely summarizing the very strange anomaly in the 'OHP and OHP society's literature' and marketing material, as to the origins of 'OHP.' It also presented this anomaly with a NPOV, which is all that matters in this Misplaced Pages article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to edit war over what is simply an edit developed through consensus and provides a NPOV. Are you both ok with me just putting Richardkeatinge's sentence and the 3 reliable sources you deleted, and give other editors a chance to comment later, or will you just revert it again? Why is it so 'personal' for you both?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please ask for the judgment of all three for the sake of arriving at a harmonious conclusion. The anomaly isn't so strange. Errors of credit happen often enough, even in science, and even in less trivial situations (e.g., the wrong person gets a Nobel and the right person doesn't). Iss246 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit was written by richardkeatinge and involved the consensus of you and psyc12 and all other editors 6 months ago. It is not very civil to just delete it like you both have and creates unnecessary conflict. Restoring it is just the fairest thing to do? Also can you comment below iss246. I would like your thoughts on external links please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just restored Richardkeatinge's & other's sentence and 3 rel sources attached as it did not seem fair to just blindly delete by psyc12&iss246. If after Richardkeatinge and others decide it is not needed I will go with the consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is true that someone made a mistake in attribution. But it is a minor point. That is why I deleted it. A major encyclopedia-worthy attribution error would be if the Nobel committee awarded the Prize to the wrong scientist or denied the Prize to the right scientist. If we included every minor attribution error made, Misplaced Pages would be overrun with attribution errors. Iss246 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted again iss246, even though we were respectfully waiting for Richardkeatinge's input? The sentence relates to the history of 'OHP' and your 'OHP' society. Richardkeatinge's sentence reflected a clear anomoly in the literature, (written by other members of your OHP society) and should remain in the article. This "error" as you call it, seems why you and psyc12 are so focused on deleting that small detail, and indeed any other information from this article, which may not reflect positively on your 'OHP' society members. But this is an encyclopedic Misplaced Pages article meant to be presenting a NPOV based on what reliable sources say?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I requested that you contact 3 experienced editors, RK, WhatamIdoing, & Bilby, for input regarding your insistence on including a minor attribution error. You didn't. I deleted mention of the minor error. Iss246 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In US slang, you are making a "federal case" out of including a factoid. Iss246 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a 'promotional brochure' for your society of 'OHP' members, rather than an encyclopedic article, written with a NPOV and based on what the reliable sources 'actually' say. Richardkeatinge's edit should be restored, and the 3 reliable sources attached to it. Iss246, please consider alternatives to reverting rather than blindly deleting other editor's 'long standing,' well sourced, key sentences. I have found this article to be very helpful in providing guidance with these types of issues. Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessaryMrm7171 (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If that sentence & 3 RS is deleted again, a solution would be to also delete this sentence? "The term "occupational health psychology" appeared in print from 1985." (as both are part of the other)? I would support that approach as well. So, either we include both sentences together, or neither, seems most logical?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links

I added external links that are relevant to OHP. NIOSH, APA through its Public Interest Directorate, and SOHP sponsor a biennial conference devoted to OHP research and practice. EAOHP also sponsors a biennial conference on alternate years. All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice. Iss246 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add some other external links to this article. Is there any criteria we should be guided by here?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering why these links have been selectively placed in this article and how they relate to OHP and/or the 2 professional societies for OHP? You say iss246, "All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice." Can you explain their relevance please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Four organizations. EA-OHP, SOHP, APA or the APA Public Interest Directorate, and NIOSH. I explained these links previously. Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by "All four organizations play a role in OHP research and practice." Can you elaborate please?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for accuracy but I have done this already. The justifications are already documented. In fact, I already repeated a justification applicable to the issue you raise here regarding NIOSH and OHP on your talk page on February 26, which for me is yesterday in my time zone. Iss246 (talk)

Are these your comments you are referring to? "First, NIOSH's intramural research program includes OHP research. Second, NIOSH's grant program supports OHP research (I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research). Third, NIOSH is a sponsor along with APA and SOHP of the biennial conference on OHP research. I therefore think it is reasonable to include OHP in the NIOSH entry."?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Or was it some other comments you made? Please just elaborate clearly iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As you say isss246, "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research" but how is your recent 'placement' of these NIOSH external links into this article, and indeed other related articles justified and presented with a NPOV? I just don't see the relevance of their inclusion in this article at all, I'm sorry, even though you are obviously being paid financially, by this government organisation NIOSH for your 'OHP' research as you say? Can you please declare your outside interests for transparency?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are to be links to outside organizations, APA and NIOSH make sense because of their historical role in developing OHP into a discipline and through their continued activities and support. APA publishes JOHP, NIOSH funds OHP training, and both are co-sponsors of the Work, Stress, and Health Conference along with SOHP. Both websites have sections relevant to OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry psyc12, you are answering again for iss246. I'm not sure which of you I am talking to? As you are both members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and friends and colleagues outside of Misplaced Pages, makes editing very disruptive. Are you also paid financially by NIOSH and involved with NIOSH's education programs, like iss246 states above, that they are being paid financially for 'OHP' research? Coming from a NPOV and as 'independent editor' I just don't see why you both have placed these particular links to NIOSH in this article and indeed other related articles? Seems very odd?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about one editor answering another editor's question. Psyc12 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was a little slow in responding. NIOSH and APA were instrumental in the development of OHP worldwide. The first APA/NIOSH conference and later conferences were co-sponsored by the different institutes of health in the Nordic countries. The APA/NIOSH/and-now-SOHP conference draws conferees from around the world. NIOSH continues to support OHP research both in its intramural research program and in its extramural grants program. I don't think I need to explain the links to SOHP and EA-OHP. That is self-evident. APA has a special office devoted to work, stress, and health. I don't want to take up too much space, so I will stop here. Iss246 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you already stated that iss246. Thank you. As you say isss246, "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research" I just don't see the relevance of their inclusion in this article at all, I'm sorry, even though you are obviously being paid financially, by this government organisation NIOSH for your 'OHP' research as you say? Can you both please declare your outside interests on this talk page for transparency?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I have been civil with you. You have been uncivil me. Your charge is that I am being paid by NIOSH to put OHP and NIOSH on Misplaced Pages. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read your comment. Way uncool. Iss246 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are getting off topic, Mrm7171. Why do you think these links are irrelevant? Psyc12 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry psyc12. You are choosing to answer for iss246 again? and with the same POV, rather than as 'independent editors'. There are obvious commercial and financial interests involved here, which are not being fully declared on this talk page, and in all of these interrelated articles, as iss246 clearly states "I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research"?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And no, iss246/psyc12. I have not made any specific accusation. Just posted 'word for word' your comments regarding financial payments from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Please don't fabricate or distort what is clearly outlined above.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I had also said at the beginning of this thread that I would like to add some other external links to this article but you both did not respond. Is there any criteria we should be guided by here regarding external links?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions to current article

I would like to add some other reliable sources and external links to this article from other related disciplines and reliable sources, not just from the sources written by members of the society of 'OHP' or the journal of 'OHP' as this article is 'clogged' with currently. Other fields like occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology among others should also be included. If the 2 'OHP' societies really need to be mentioned in this article for some reason?, then other professional societies from these relevant fields mentioned, should also be included for balance, and to present a NPOV free any editorial bias. Personally I do not see the relevance of including mention of these 2 societies at all, given they have dedicated articles already?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph has internal links to i/o & health Ψ. The i/o and abnormal Wiki entries don't have external links to other disciplines or outside/related organizations. So leave the OHP external links section alone. There is nothing nefarious about external links to SOHP or EA-OHP. The entry on pediatrics contains an external link to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is useful to external links to relevant organizations. Iss246 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Antoniou, A.G., & Cooper, C.L. (2011). New Directions in Organisational Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
2. Quick, J.C. (1999). Occupational Health Psychology. Historical Roots and future directions. Health Psychology, 18 (1), 82-88.
3. Houdmont, J., Leka, S. & Cox, T. (2007). Education in occupational health psychology in Europe: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going? In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on Research.

• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles