Correction: The relationship between cumulative unfair treatment and intima media thickness and adventitial diameter: The moderating role of race in the study of women's health across the nation (Health Psychology (2016) 35:4 (313-321) DOI: 10.1037/hea0000288)

Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, Rebecca C. Thurston

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

The article "The Relationship Between Cumulative Unfair Treatment and Intima Media Thickness and Adventitial Diameter: The Moderating Role of Race in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation," by Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, and Rebecca C. Thurston (Health Psychology, 2016, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 313-321, http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/hea0000288) included the following errors: First, the Method section included intima media thickness in the list of log transformed variables (p. 316); however, untransformed intima media thickness was normally distributed and results throughout the manuscript are based on untransformed intima media thickness as the criterion variable. Second, in the fourth paragraph of the Results section (p. 317), there are minor corrections to the sensitivity analyses investigating the relationship of high chronicity unfair treatment and adventitial diameter. The corrected version follows (with the corrected values in bold): "No main effect of high chronicity emerged for IMT or adventitial diameter (ps > .30), but moderate/significant race by high chronicity interactions emerged for IMT (p = .08) and adventitial diameter (p = .02), with follow up analyses demonstrating that high chronicity was associated with higher IMT (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .01) and adventitial diameter (B = .025, SE = .01, p = .009) among Caucasians, but this relationship did not emerge for other races (ps > .14)." Please note that in all cases the statistical conclusions remain the same.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalHealth Psychology
Volume38
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Behavioral Medicine
Adventitia
Women's Health
Therapeutics
Manuscripts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{e026ad61f6f044839f5556e683f343b0,
title = "Correction: The relationship between cumulative unfair treatment and intima media thickness and adventitial diameter: The moderating role of race in the study of women's health across the nation (Health Psychology (2016) 35:4 (313-321) DOI: 10.1037/hea0000288)",
abstract = "The article {"}The Relationship Between Cumulative Unfair Treatment and Intima Media Thickness and Adventitial Diameter: The Moderating Role of Race in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation,{"} by Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, and Rebecca C. Thurston (Health Psychology, 2016, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 313-321, http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/hea0000288) included the following errors: First, the Method section included intima media thickness in the list of log transformed variables (p. 316); however, untransformed intima media thickness was normally distributed and results throughout the manuscript are based on untransformed intima media thickness as the criterion variable. Second, in the fourth paragraph of the Results section (p. 317), there are minor corrections to the sensitivity analyses investigating the relationship of high chronicity unfair treatment and adventitial diameter. The corrected version follows (with the corrected values in bold): {"}No main effect of high chronicity emerged for IMT or adventitial diameter (ps > .30), but moderate/significant race by high chronicity interactions emerged for IMT (p = .08) and adventitial diameter (p = .02), with follow up analyses demonstrating that high chronicity was associated with higher IMT (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .01) and adventitial diameter (B = .025, SE = .01, p = .009) among Caucasians, but this relationship did not emerge for other races (ps > .14).{"} Please note that in all cases the statistical conclusions remain the same.",
author = "Peterson, {Laurel M.} and Matthews, {Karen A.} and Derby, {Carol A.} and Bromberger, {Joyce T.} and Thurston, {Rebecca C.}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1037/hea0000748",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Health Psychology",
issn = "0278-6133",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction

T2 - The relationship between cumulative unfair treatment and intima media thickness and adventitial diameter: The moderating role of race in the study of women's health across the nation (Health Psychology (2016) 35:4 (313-321) DOI: 10.1037/hea0000288)

AU - Peterson, Laurel M.

AU - Matthews, Karen A.

AU - Derby, Carol A.

AU - Bromberger, Joyce T.

AU - Thurston, Rebecca C.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - The article "The Relationship Between Cumulative Unfair Treatment and Intima Media Thickness and Adventitial Diameter: The Moderating Role of Race in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation," by Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, and Rebecca C. Thurston (Health Psychology, 2016, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 313-321, http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/hea0000288) included the following errors: First, the Method section included intima media thickness in the list of log transformed variables (p. 316); however, untransformed intima media thickness was normally distributed and results throughout the manuscript are based on untransformed intima media thickness as the criterion variable. Second, in the fourth paragraph of the Results section (p. 317), there are minor corrections to the sensitivity analyses investigating the relationship of high chronicity unfair treatment and adventitial diameter. The corrected version follows (with the corrected values in bold): "No main effect of high chronicity emerged for IMT or adventitial diameter (ps > .30), but moderate/significant race by high chronicity interactions emerged for IMT (p = .08) and adventitial diameter (p = .02), with follow up analyses demonstrating that high chronicity was associated with higher IMT (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .01) and adventitial diameter (B = .025, SE = .01, p = .009) among Caucasians, but this relationship did not emerge for other races (ps > .14)." Please note that in all cases the statistical conclusions remain the same.

AB - The article "The Relationship Between Cumulative Unfair Treatment and Intima Media Thickness and Adventitial Diameter: The Moderating Role of Race in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation," by Laurel M. Peterson, Karen A. Matthews, Carol A. Derby, Joyce T. Bromberger, and Rebecca C. Thurston (Health Psychology, 2016, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 313-321, http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/hea0000288) included the following errors: First, the Method section included intima media thickness in the list of log transformed variables (p. 316); however, untransformed intima media thickness was normally distributed and results throughout the manuscript are based on untransformed intima media thickness as the criterion variable. Second, in the fourth paragraph of the Results section (p. 317), there are minor corrections to the sensitivity analyses investigating the relationship of high chronicity unfair treatment and adventitial diameter. The corrected version follows (with the corrected values in bold): "No main effect of high chronicity emerged for IMT or adventitial diameter (ps > .30), but moderate/significant race by high chronicity interactions emerged for IMT (p = .08) and adventitial diameter (p = .02), with follow up analyses demonstrating that high chronicity was associated with higher IMT (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .01) and adventitial diameter (B = .025, SE = .01, p = .009) among Caucasians, but this relationship did not emerge for other races (ps > .14)." Please note that in all cases the statistical conclusions remain the same.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070877387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070877387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/hea0000748

DO - 10.1037/hea0000748

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 31368755

AN - SCOPUS:85070877387

VL - 38

JO - Health Psychology

JF - Health Psychology

SN - 0278-6133

IS - 8

ER -