Organizational and social justice paradoxes in EDI.

This perspective article positions social justice as an addition to the aims of organizational justice, and core to diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). It problematizes simplistic DEI rhetoric and positions paradoxes within DEI, as experienced by employers, based on an explanation of key justice concepts and the introduction of fairness, equality, desert, and need. The paper broadens perspective-taking beyond a sole focus on beneficiaries of DEI, towards tensions that employers experience in working towards the aims of workplace justice, including the embeddedness of social justice within both organizations and social systems. The paper concludes with avenues for future research and a call to carefully examine simplistic notions of organizational justice in effecting DEI, suggesting a paradoxical lens on embracing, rather than avoiding, multiple and often conflicting workplace justice imperatives.

A Rasch Adapted Version of the 30-Item Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI).

As a foundational instrument in the measurement of gender, the study investigated the psychometric properties of the item scores on the 30-item Bem Sex Roles Inventory (BSRI) to address concerns raised in previous studies and to determine possible differential item functioning (DIF) by applying a Rasch measurement model on a multicultural South African sample. A quantitative cross-sectional research design with 55.3% women and 44.4% men was used. Overall, we found support for the reliability and validity of BSRI item scores, consistent with findings in North American and European contexts. The results supported the use of a 6-point response format as opposed to the original 7-point response format. The items "aggressive" (masculinity) and "loves children" (femininity) were removed. The Neutral dimension fit the data well. No DIF for the groupings of man/woman, race, and language (the latter 2 as measures of culture) were found. This study makes contributions by applying a Rasch measurement model to the BSRI, scores which have previously only been validated through classical test theory and often excludes the validation of the neutral dimension scores.

Perineal colostomy with appendicostomy as an alternative for an abdominal colostomy: symptoms, functional status, quality of life, and perceived health.

PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal rectum resection with perineal colostomy and appendicostomy for antegrade continence enema has been developed as an alternative for abdominal colostomy or total anal reconstruction in patients with low rectal cancer. This present study was designed to compare symptoms, functional status, quality of life, and perceived health after perineal colostomy and appendicostomy with that after abdominal colostomy. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients, 14 with abdominal colostomy and 13 with perineal colostomy and appendicostomy, were included. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and CR38 were used to investigate functional status and symptoms. Quality of life was measured by using a Linear Analog Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Self-perceived health was assessed by using a Linear Analog Scale. RESULTS: Patients with perineal colostomy and appendicostomy were younger and more frequently female. They experienced better physical functioning (93.3 vs. 73.3 P = 0.048), a slightly better role functioning (100 vs. 83.3 not significant), body image (77.8 vs. 66.7 not significant), and sexual functioning (33.3 vs. 0; not significant) than patients with abdominal colostomy. Stoma-related problems were substantial in patients with abdominal colostomy (38.1) and very limited in patients with an appendicostomy (8.7). Fecal loss did not occur one hour or more after antegrade continence enema in 11 patients with perineal colostomy and was limited in the others. Quality of life and self-perceived health were comparably good in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal colostomy with appendicostomy for antegrade continence enema is a valid and acceptable alternative for a permanent abdominal colostomy in selected patients, with a comparable functional and quality of life outcome.