The Experts below are selected from a list of 255 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Russell A. Matthews - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Innovative Ideas on How Work-Family Research Can Have More Impact.
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:The commentaries on our focal article agreed with its main premise that work–Family Research should follow new strategies to improve its practical impact, and made suggestions clustering into three main themes. The first theme built on our suggestion to improve the Research focus, terminology, and framing of work-Family Research. These essays offered additional ideas such as decoupling work-Family from work-life Research, and examining contextual factors more deeply. The second theme focused on how to better apply the findings from work Family Research. These commentaries provided social change approaches for making work-Family issues more central to key stakeholders and to organizations. The third theme focused on broadening our scope to the societal level. These editorials advocated tactics supporting the development of basic rights of work–life balance within and across nations.
-
How Work–Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in Organizations
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
-
how work Family Research can finally have an impact in organizations
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
Matt Mcgue - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research.
Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies, 2019Co-Authors: Sylia Wilson, Kevin Haroian, William G Iacono, Robert F Krueger, James J Lee, Monica Luciana, Stephen M Malone, Matt Mcgue, Glenn I Roisman, Scott VriezeAbstract:The Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) comprises multiple longitudinal, community-representative investigations of twin and adoptive families that focus on psychological adjustment, personality, cognitive ability and brain function, with a special emphasis on substance use and related psychopathology. The MCTFR includes the Minnesota Twin Registry (MTR), a cohort of twins who have completed assessments in middle and older adulthood; the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS) of twins assessed from childhood and adolescence into middle adulthood; the Enrichment Study (ES) of twins oversampled for high risk for substance-use disorders assessed from childhood into young adulthood; the Adolescent Brain (AdBrain) study, a neuroimaging study of adolescent twins; and the Siblings Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS), a study of adoptive and nonadoptive families assessed from adolescence into young adulthood. Here we provide a brief overview of key features of these established studies and describe new MCTFR investigations that follow up and expand upon existing studies or recruit and assess new samples, including the MTR Study of Relationships, Personality, and Health (MTR-RPH); the Colorado-Minnesota (COMN) Marijuana Study; the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study; the Colorado Online Twins (CoTwins) study and the Children of Twins (CoT) study.
-
the minnesota center for twin and Family Research genome wide association study
Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2012Co-Authors: Michael B Miller, William G Iacono, Stephen M Malone, Saonli Basu, Julie M Cunningham, Eleazar Eskin, William S Oetting, Nicholas J Schork, Jae Hoon Sul, Matt McgueAbstract:As part of the Genes, Environment and Development Initiative, the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) undertook a genome-wide association study, which we describe here. A total of 8,405 Research participants, clustered in four-member families, have been successfully genotyped on 527,829 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers using Illumina's Human660W-Quad array. Quality control screening of samples and markers as well as SNP imputation procedures are described. We also describe methods for ancestry control and how the familial clustering of the MCTFR sample can be accounted for in the analysis using a Rapid Feasible Generalized Least Squares algorithm. The rich longitudinal MCTFR assessments provide numerous opportunities for collaboration.
-
Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research
Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies, 2006Co-Authors: William G Iacono, Matt Mcgue, Robert F KruegerAbstract:The Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) houses a collection of longitudinal, community-based twin-Family and adoptee-Family projects that focus on the mental health outcomes of adolescent youth with a special focus on the development of substance use and related behavior disorders. The Minnesota Twin Family Study includes epidemiological investigations of 11- and 17-year-old twins, an examination of 11-year-old twins selected for being at high risk for having a childhood disruptive behavior disorder, and a supplemental registry of young adult twins age 18 years and older who are not enrolled in these longitudinal studies. Also, part of the MCTFR is the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study, a complementary prospective investigation of adolescent sibling pairs in families with adoptive and biological offspring. MCTFR participants from these various projects are assessed in person and through multiple informants to provide comprehensive coverage of psychological adjustment, mental health, and psychosocial risk/protective factors. Measurement of EEG and autonomic nervous system reactivity is also part of the assessment battery for twin families. This article provides an overview of study design and includes a review of recent MCTFR findings.
Ellen Ernst Kossek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Innovative Ideas on How Work-Family Research Can Have More Impact.
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:The commentaries on our focal article agreed with its main premise that work–Family Research should follow new strategies to improve its practical impact, and made suggestions clustering into three main themes. The first theme built on our suggestion to improve the Research focus, terminology, and framing of work-Family Research. These essays offered additional ideas such as decoupling work-Family from work-life Research, and examining contextual factors more deeply. The second theme focused on how to better apply the findings from work Family Research. These commentaries provided social change approaches for making work-Family issues more central to key stakeholders and to organizations. The third theme focused on broadening our scope to the societal level. These editorials advocated tactics supporting the development of basic rights of work–life balance within and across nations.
-
How Work–Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in Organizations
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
-
how work Family Research can finally have an impact in organizations
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
William G Iacono - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research.
Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies, 2019Co-Authors: Sylia Wilson, Kevin Haroian, William G Iacono, Robert F Krueger, James J Lee, Monica Luciana, Stephen M Malone, Matt Mcgue, Glenn I Roisman, Scott VriezeAbstract:The Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) comprises multiple longitudinal, community-representative investigations of twin and adoptive families that focus on psychological adjustment, personality, cognitive ability and brain function, with a special emphasis on substance use and related psychopathology. The MCTFR includes the Minnesota Twin Registry (MTR), a cohort of twins who have completed assessments in middle and older adulthood; the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS) of twins assessed from childhood and adolescence into middle adulthood; the Enrichment Study (ES) of twins oversampled for high risk for substance-use disorders assessed from childhood into young adulthood; the Adolescent Brain (AdBrain) study, a neuroimaging study of adolescent twins; and the Siblings Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS), a study of adoptive and nonadoptive families assessed from adolescence into young adulthood. Here we provide a brief overview of key features of these established studies and describe new MCTFR investigations that follow up and expand upon existing studies or recruit and assess new samples, including the MTR Study of Relationships, Personality, and Health (MTR-RPH); the Colorado-Minnesota (COMN) Marijuana Study; the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study; the Colorado Online Twins (CoTwins) study and the Children of Twins (CoT) study.
-
the minnesota center for twin and Family Research genome wide association study
Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2012Co-Authors: Michael B Miller, William G Iacono, Stephen M Malone, Saonli Basu, Julie M Cunningham, Eleazar Eskin, William S Oetting, Nicholas J Schork, Jae Hoon Sul, Matt McgueAbstract:As part of the Genes, Environment and Development Initiative, the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) undertook a genome-wide association study, which we describe here. A total of 8,405 Research participants, clustered in four-member families, have been successfully genotyped on 527,829 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers using Illumina's Human660W-Quad array. Quality control screening of samples and markers as well as SNP imputation procedures are described. We also describe methods for ancestry control and how the familial clustering of the MCTFR sample can be accounted for in the analysis using a Rapid Feasible Generalized Least Squares algorithm. The rich longitudinal MCTFR assessments provide numerous opportunities for collaboration.
-
Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research
Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies, 2006Co-Authors: William G Iacono, Matt Mcgue, Robert F KruegerAbstract:The Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research (MCTFR) houses a collection of longitudinal, community-based twin-Family and adoptee-Family projects that focus on the mental health outcomes of adolescent youth with a special focus on the development of substance use and related behavior disorders. The Minnesota Twin Family Study includes epidemiological investigations of 11- and 17-year-old twins, an examination of 11-year-old twins selected for being at high risk for having a childhood disruptive behavior disorder, and a supplemental registry of young adult twins age 18 years and older who are not enrolled in these longitudinal studies. Also, part of the MCTFR is the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study, a complementary prospective investigation of adolescent sibling pairs in families with adoptive and biological offspring. MCTFR participants from these various projects are assessed in person and through multiple informants to provide comprehensive coverage of psychological adjustment, mental health, and psychosocial risk/protective factors. Measurement of EEG and autonomic nervous system reactivity is also part of the assessment battery for twin families. This article provides an overview of study design and includes a review of recent MCTFR findings.
Boris B. Baltes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Innovative Ideas on How Work-Family Research Can Have More Impact.
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:The commentaries on our focal article agreed with its main premise that work–Family Research should follow new strategies to improve its practical impact, and made suggestions clustering into three main themes. The first theme built on our suggestion to improve the Research focus, terminology, and framing of work-Family Research. These essays offered additional ideas such as decoupling work-Family from work-life Research, and examining contextual factors more deeply. The second theme focused on how to better apply the findings from work Family Research. These commentaries provided social change approaches for making work-Family issues more central to key stakeholders and to organizations. The third theme focused on broadening our scope to the societal level. These editorials advocated tactics supporting the development of basic rights of work–life balance within and across nations.
-
How Work–Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in Organizations
Industrial and organizational psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
-
how work Family Research can finally have an impact in organizations
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Ellen Ernst Kossek, Boris B. Baltes, Russell A. MatthewsAbstract:Although work–Family Research has mushroomed over the past several decades, an implementation gap persists in putting work–Family Research into practice. Because of this, work–Family Researchers have not made a significant impact in improving the lives of employees relative to the amount of Research that has been conducted. The goal of this article is to clarify areas where implementation gaps between work–Family Research and practice are prevalent, discuss the importance of reducing these gaps, and make the case that both better and different Research should be conducted. We recommend several alternative but complementary actions for the work–Family Researcher: (a) work with organizations to study their policy and practice implementation efforts, (b) focus on the impact of rapid technological advances that are blurring work–Family boundaries, (c) conduct Research to empower the individual to self-manage the work–Family interface, and (d) engage in advocacy and collaborative policy Research to change institutional contexts and break down silos. Increased partnerships between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology practitioners and Researchers from many industries and disciplines could break down silos that we see as limiting development of the field.
