No abstract

Purpose This study aims to analyze the success rate and functional outcome after revision surgery of persistent idiopathic full-thickness macular holes in a large patient cohort and to identify the optimal tamponade strategy and the value of new adjunctive manipulation techniques for persistent macular hole (pMH) closure. Methods Retrospective, comparative, non-consecutive case series of all revisional surgeries for idiopathic pMH between 2011 and 2019 at the Eye Clinic Sulzbach were identified. Of 1163 idiopathic MH surgeries, 74 eyes of 74 patients had pMH. Of those, group 1 (n = 38) had vitrectomy with tamponade alone (20% sulfur hexafluoride gas, 15% hexafluoroethane gas, silicone oil 5000, Densiron®), while group 2 (n = 36) included tamponade with adjuvant manipulation (internal limiting membrane (ILM) translocation, subretinal fluid injection, epiretinal amniotic membrane, free retina graft, or autologous blood). Main statistical outcomes were anatomic closure rate, visual acuity (VA), minimum linear diameter (MLD), and base diameter (BD). Results Overall total anatomical success rate was 81.1% and mean VA improved 3.5 lines from LogMAR 1.03 ± 0.30 to 0.68 ± 0.38 (p < .001). Preoperative MLD or BD had no effect on total anatomic success (p = 0.074, p = 0.134, respectively). When comparing the two groups, slightly better anatomic success rates were achieved in group 1 (84.2%) compared to that in group 2 (77.8%) (p = 0.68). Final VA in group 1 (LogMAR 0.67 ± 0.39) outperformed group 2 (LogMAR 0.86 ± 0.38) (p = 0.03). Conclusions Revisional surgery for persistent idiopathic MH with tamponade alone had comparable anatomical closure but better VA outcomes, compared to tamponade with adjuvant manipulation.

Women remain under-represented in leadership positions in many countries. Since executive search consultants (also known as headhunters) act as gatekeepers in the hiring process, headhunters' biases might influence the female under-representation. There is preliminary evidence that suggests headhunters favor men, but direct evidence is missing. Thus, this study directly tested this assumption using implicit and explicit measures (an implicit association test and a gender role attitudes survey), completed by 123 German executive search consultants. Although neither measure showed an anti-women bias (with the explicit measure being compared to a match sample from a representative survey using propensity score matching), the implicit association test showed an in-group bias (i.e., male headhunter had a stronger association of men and competence than of women and competence). The latter is worrisome because the majority of consultants in this business are men. Thus, organizations interested in more female managers need to carefully consider who they hire as their executive search consultants.

System justification is a widely researched topic in social and political psychology. One major measurement instrument in system justification research is the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS). This scale has been used, among others, for comparisons across social groups in different countries. Such comparisons rely on the assumption that the scale is measurement equivalent. However, this assumption has never been comprehensively tested. Thus, the present two studies assessed the measurement equivalence of the G-SJS following classic measurement equivalence guidelines (i.e., multigroup confirmatory factor analyses) in Study 1 and using a new method for comparing larger numbers of groups in Study 2 (i.e., alignment optimization). In Study 1, we analysed the measurement equivalence in Great Britain (n = 444), Germany (n = 454), and France (n = 463). In Study 2, we used a publicly available dataset consisting of 66 samples from 30 countries (N = 13,495) to again assess the measurement equivalence of the scale. Results indicated (partial) metric equivalence, but not scalar equivalence in both studies. Overall, the studies indicate that mean comparisons across the examined countries are not warranted with the current form of the G-SJS. The scale needs to be revised for valid cross-country comparisons of means. | 1033MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION SCALE I N TRODUC T IONSystem justification theory recently turned 25 years old ( Jost, 2019). Over the years, numerous publications support the system justification construct, its antecedents, and predictions (e.g Jost et al., 2017;Osborne et al., 2019;van der Toorn et al., 2011). In fact, system justification theory is one of the most influential theories in recent social psychological research. The original article by Jost and Banaji (1994) has been cited 3,958 times, according to Google Scholar (as of October 8 th , 2021), and the publication of articles dealing with system justification has increased exponentially since the publication of the original article (Osborne et al., 2019).What many of these publications have in common is usage of the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS, Kay & Jost, 2003). This scale has been used in different contexts, age groups, and countries. Such comparisons depend on the scale's measurement equivalence (ME) across the assessed groups and countries. ME ensures that observed differences between groups or countries are based on differences in the construct itself and are not caused by improper translation or different understanding of items by different participant groups (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). To the extent that the (often implicit) assumption of ME is violated, the validity of the conclusions drawn from comparisons may be compromised. However, although key for cross-group comparisons, ME of the G-SJS has rarely been examined, one exception being Vargas-Salfate et al. ( 2018) who tested the ME for a shortened scale. The aim of this article was to take a first step into filling this gap by assessing the measure...

No abstract