Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:36, 30 March 2014

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Musculoskeletal disorder.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Lack of connection between I/O psychology and MSDs

I deleted the see also link to the industrial and organizational psychology page because there is little to no connection between the two topics. For example, the two volume Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology doesn't even mention it in the index. The Encyclopedia of I and O Psychology has no entry on the topic. I cannot find it in the indexes of I/O textbooks by Schultz & Schultz, Riggio, Levy, Lowenberg & Conrad, Landy & Conte, or Aamodt. It is not at all clear why an MSD article reader would be directed to the I & O article.

Because work psychology and work psychologists are directly concerned with occupational stress (which is one cause of muscoskeletal disorders) as well as human factors and ergonomics.

This is your opinion. Where is your reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology?

Much research has been conducted by the institute of work psychology (IWP) for instance in the UK, and a growing interest internationally by work psychologists in the physical health outcomes, of occupational stress. This source is very specific. ^[1] The minor inclusion of work psychology in the 'see also' section of this article seems relevant and justified for all of these reasons.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your point. So one I/O psychologist wrote a paper about MSDs. How does that make the I/O article relevant? Psyc12 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO is the policy. "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. I have also shown the relevancy clearly above. You then asked, directly above, for a "reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology". I provided one. There are other reliable sources specific to MSDs too. That one just happened to already be in the article. Let's move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is okay to have both work psychology and occupational health psychology in the 'see also' section. Seems both are relevant and would enable readers to explore both tangentially related topics? But to exclude one area over the other seems very wrong to me?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sprigg, C. A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Holman, D. J., & Smith, P. R. (2007). Work characteristics, musculoskeletal disorders, and the mediating role of psychological strain: A study of call center employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1456-1466.

[1] Sprigg, C. A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Holman, D. J., & Smith, P. R. (2007). Work characteristics, musculoskeletal disorders, and the mediating role of psychological strain: A study of call center employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1456-1466.

[1]

Revision as of 02:50, 30 March 2014 edit Mrm7171 (talk \| contribs) 4,328 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:36, 30 March 2014 edit undo Mrm7171 (talk \| contribs) 4,328 edits Why can't both related topics be included in the see also section psyc12? Next edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:

	[[WP:SEEALSO]] is the policy. "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. I have also shown the '''relevancy''' clearly above. You then asked, directly above, for a "reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology". I provided one. There are other reliable sources specific to MSDs too. That one just happened to already be in the article. Let's move on.[[User:Mrm7171\|Mrm7171]] ([[User talk:Mrm7171\|talk]]) 02:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)		[[WP:SEEALSO]] is the policy. "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. I have also shown the '''relevancy''' clearly above. You then asked, directly above, for a "reference linking MSDs to I/O psychology". I provided one. There are other reliable sources specific to MSDs too. That one just happened to already be in the article. Let's move on.[[User:Mrm7171\|Mrm7171]] ([[User talk:Mrm7171\|talk]]) 02:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

			:I also think it is okay to have both work psychology and occupational health psychology in the 'see also' section. Seems both are relevant and would enable readers to explore both tangentially related topics? But to exclude one area over the other seems very wrong to me?[[User:Mrm7171\|Mrm7171]] ([[User talk:Mrm7171\|talk]]) 04:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)