While suboptimal in quality, the preponderance of evidence suggests that physicians have a limited ability to accurately self-assess. The processes currently used to undertake professional development and evaluate competence may need to focus more on external assessment.

No abstract

The most influential study of the person-environment (P-E) fit approach to stress was conducted by J. R. P. French, R. D. Caplan, and R. V Harrison (1982). Unfortunately, this study operationalized fit using various transformations of difference scores, thereby introducing numerous substantive and methodological problems. In the present study, the authors reanalyze data from French et al, using a procedure described by J. R. Edwards (in press) that avoids problems with difference scores and captures the underlying three-dimensional relationship between E, P, and strain. Results resolve ambiguities in the French et al. findings and identify relationships between E, P, and strain that, although consistent with P-E fit theory, cannot be adequately represented by fit measures such as those used by French et al. Implications for P-E fit research are discussed.The person-environment (P-E) fit approach to stress (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982) has become widely accepted among organizational stress researchers (Eulberg, Weekley, & Bhagat, 1988). In essence, the P-E fit approach states that misfit between the person and the environment may produce psychological, physiological, and behavioral strains (e.g., dissatisfaction, elevated serum cholesterol, and smoking) that ultimately increase morbidity and mortality. These basic principles underlie numerous theories of stress in organizations, such as those proposed by McGrath (1976), Karasek (1979), Schuler (1980), Beehr and Bhagat (1985), and Edwards (1992).The most comprehensive study of P-E fit to date was conducted by French et al. (1982; see also Caplan et al., 1980). This study measured E and P variables on eight job dimensions, used five operationalizations of fit, and included 18 measures of psychological and physiological strain. The results of this study yielded three major conclusions. First, misfit was frequently associated with increased strain, particularly job-related affect and psychological disturbance. Second, the relationship between misfit and strain was often curvilinear, with a turning point where E and P were equal. Third, fit measures representing these curvilinear relationships often accounted for significant variance beyond that explained by E and P measures, typically doubling the proportion of variance explained in strain.Although the French et al. (1982) study is undoubtedly a landmark in the P-E fit literature, it operationalized fit using various transformations of the algebraic difference between E and P. As is widely known, difference scores suffer from numerous substantive and methodological problems (Cronbach & Furby, 1970;Edwards & Cooper, 1990;Johns, 1981;Wall & Payne, 1973;Werts & Linn, 1970). In fairness, we acknowledge that French et al. conducted their study before many of these problems had been identified and that methods that overcome these problems have only recently been developed (Edwards, in press). Nonetheless, these problems severely limit the conclusiveness of what remai...

In honor of John R. P. French, Jr., recipient of the 1992 Kurt Lewin Award, this article traces French's contribution to the development of person‐environment (PE)fit theory. The text examines recent extensions of PE fit theory. Extensions include the introduction of response surfaces to examine the homogeneity of effects of PE fit on indicators of mental health across all levels of P or of E and research examining the antecedents of PE fit. The Lewinian tradition of applying theory to the study of social issues is followed to suggest areas for future research.

No abstract