There has been considerable controversy about methods for assessing life stress. However, self‐report checklists and interview‐based measures (the predominant approaches used in current research) differ in several respects, ranging from basic definitions through theoretical assumptions. Most research comparing these two approaches has focused on global comparisons in predicting disorder, which fail to take into account more specific information on how the methods vary. The present article outlines three stages of assessment for life stress: definition, operationalization, and quantification. Detailed examination of these stages with a sample of depressed patients helps to demonstrate in an explicit manner how self‐report checklists and interview‐based methods differ at successive stages of the measurement process. Data are presented that indicate large endpoint discrepancies attributable to specific differences in the definitional and operational procedures used in the two assessment approaches. The nature of the discrepancies found is discussed, along with the implications for assessing life stress and testing its implications for health and well‐being.

No abstract

The effectiveness of a nap as a recovery strategy for endurance exercise is unknown and therefore the present study investigated the effect of napping on endurance exercise performance. Eleven trained male runners completed this randomised crossover study. On two occasions, runners completed treadmill running for 30 min at 75% ⩒O in the morning, returning that evening to run for 20 min at 60% ⩒O, and then to exhaustion at 90% ⩒O. On one trial, runners had an afternoon nap approximately 90 min before the evening exercise (NAP) whilst on the other, runners did not (CON). All runners napped (20 ± 10 min), but time to exhaustion (TTE) was not improved in all runners (NAP 596 ± 148 s vs. CON 589 ± 216 s, P = .83). Runners that improved TTE after the nap slept less at night than those that did not improve TTE (night-time sleep 6.4 ± 0.7 h vs. 7.5 ± 0.4 h, P < .01). Furthermore, night-time sleep predicted change in TTE, indicating that runners sleeping least at night improved TTE the most after the nap compared to CON (r = -0.76, P = .001). In runners that improved TTE, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were lower during the TTE on NAP than CON compared to runners that did not improve (-0.4 ± 0.6 vs. 0 ± 0, P = .05). Reduced exercising sense of effort (RPE) may account for the improved TTE after the nap. In conclusion, a short afternoon nap improves endurance performance in runners that obtain less than 7 h night-time sleep.

Two field experiments were conducted in Oklahoma to determine whether changing wheat row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar would reduce interference from rye. Wheat row spacing did not affect rye seed production. Averaged over row spacing, increasing wheat seeding rate from 67 to 134 kg/ha reduced rye seed production 21 and 25% in two experiments. At one site, grain yield of rye-infested wheat was increased 27 and 23% by doubling wheat seeding rate in 10- and 20-cm rows. Doubling the seeding rate of rye-infested wheat in 30-cm rows did not increase wheat yield. At a second site when data were pooled over row spacings, increasing the wheat seeding rate from 67 to 101 kg/ha increased yield of rye-infested wheat 21%, but yield was still 36% less than for rye-free wheat. In two additional experiments, rye seeds in harvested wheat were reduced 36% by increasing the wheat seeding rate from 60 to 162 kg/ha, whereas yield of rye-infested wheat was increased 82%. Nine cultivars were compared for competitive ability against rye in four experiments. Of 32 possible cultivar location situations, the rye-induced yield loss of ‘Jagger’ wheat was less than 16 other cultivar location situations, whereas the yield loss of ‘Triumph 64’ wheat was less than 10 other cultivar location situations. Mature wheat height, wheat yield, and wheat maturity classification were each negatively correlated to rye yield in infested wheat at two of four sites. Wheat plant density, head density, sunlight interception, and fall cover capability classification were each negatively correlated to rye yield at one of four sites.

No abstract