No abstract

While considerable progress has been made in organizational neuroscience over the past decade, we argue that critical evaluations of published empirical works are not being conducted carefully and consistently. In this ex- tended commentary we take as an example Waldman and colleagues (2017): a major review work that evaluates the state-of-the-art of organizational neuroscience. In what should be an evaluation of the field’s empirical work, the authors uncritically summarize a series of studies that: (1) provide insufficient transparency to be clearly un- derstood, evaluated, or replicated, and/or (2) which misuse inferential tests that lead to misleading conclusions, among other concerns. These concerns have been ignored across multiple major reviews and citing articles. We therefore provide a post-publication review (in two parts) of one-third of all studies evaluated in Waldman and colleague’s major review work. In Part I, we systematically evaluate the field’s two seminal works with respect to their methods, analytic strategy, results, and interpretation of findings. And in Part II, we provide focused reviews of secondary works that each center on a specific concern we suggest should be a point of discussion as the field moves forward. In doing so, we identify a series of practices we recommend will improve the state of the literature. This includes: (1) evaluating the transparency and completeness of an empirical article before accepting its claims, (2) becoming familiar with common misuses or misconceptions of statistical testing, and (3) interpreting results with an explicit reference to effect size magnitude, precision, and accuracy, among other recommendations. We suggest that adopting these practices will motivate the development of a more replicable, reliable, and trustworthy field of organizational neuroscience moving forward.

Objectives Researchers have begun delivering mindfulness and aerobic exercise training concurrently on the premise that a combination intervention will yield salutary outcomes over and above each intervention alone. An estimate of the effect of combination training on chronic psychosocial stress in a nonclinical population has not been established. The objective of this study was to establish protocol feasibility in preparation of a definitive RCT targeting healthy individuals, and to explore the preliminary effect of combination training on reducing chronic psychosocial stress in this population. Methods Twenty-four participants were allocated to a single-arm pre-post study and subjected to 16 weeks of concurrent mindfulness psychoeducation and aerobic exercise training. Feasibility criteria were collected and evaluated. Within-group changes in chronic psychosocial stress, mindfulness, emotion regulation, and cardiorespiratory fitness were also assessed. Primary analyses were based on 17 participants. Results Retention rate, response rate, recruitment rate, and sample size analyses indicate a definitive trial is feasible for detecting most effects with precision. There was also a decline in our primary dependent measure of chronic psychosocial stress (dpretest = −0.56, 95% CI [ −1.14,−0.06]). With regard to secondary measures, there was an increase in the use of cognitive reappraisal, and a reduction in use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies. We are insufficiently confident to comment on changes in mindfulness and aerobic capacity $\left (\dot {V}O_{2max}\right)$ V ̇ O 2 max . However, there were subgroup improvements in aerobic economy at submaximal exercise intensities. Conclusions We recommend a definitive trial is feasible and should proceed. Trial registration ANZCTR (ID: ACTRN12619001726145). Retrospectively registered December 9, 2019.

No abstract