The article reviews research on the problem of interrelationship between different physical and psychosocial factors in type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1). The authors consider methodological principles of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment in DM1 patients and stress the need for an integrated biopsychosocial approach to the management of the disease. DM1 is a chronic metabolic disease with an absolute requirement for insulin replacement therapy. The stress-inducing nature of DM1 is associated with its unexpected and dramatic manifestation in juvenile years, life-threatening nature of severe hypo-/hyperglycaemias and long-term complications, with the burden of diabetes self-management, threat of work disability, employment and career problems etc. These features of DM1 increase the likelihood of the development of anxiety and depressive disorders, which, in turn, may negatively influence the course of diabetes and in particular, diabetes self-care. This necessitates early diagnosis of emotional and behavioral disturbances in DM1 using self-report instruments as well as clinical assessment. Evidence suggests that active problem-focused coping behavior and adequate social support promote adherence to diabetes regimes and may act as a buffer against negative effects of the disease on HRQoL in DM1 patients. The core element in the HRQoL structure is personal disease picture (as opposed by objective clinical picture) – the cognitive-affective-behavioral complex reflecting the patient's personal perception of the disease. Examination of the personal disease picture and attitude towards the ailment in DM1 patients may help to improve understanding of the mechanisms of poor adjustment. Problems in disease adjustment can be detected also by diabetes-specific HRQoL assessment. The measures of HRQoL can be applied as screening instruments useful in increasing the effectiveness of patient-provider interactions and diabetes care.

There is an increasing number of studies claiming that the sex differences in general intelligence are “real.” The empirical evidence is based on the summation of the standardized sex differences in several cognitive batteries. However, the scientific construct of general ability rests on the correlations among test scores, rather than on their summation. The latter (ability in general) is an arbitrary variable, not a scientific construct. General ability is not a function of any particular cognitive test, but a source of variance evidenced by the correlation between several diverse tests, each of which reflects general ability (g) to some extent, but also group factors and test specificity. Because there are important educational, economic, and social consequences of a group difference in general ability, it is especially germane to evaluate the possibility of an average sex difference in its proxy measures, such as IQ. The Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III is analyzed in the present study. The sample was made up of 703 females and 666 males, aged 15-94, drawn as a representative sample of the population in terms of educational level and geographical location. Although a male advantage of 3.6 IQ points is observed, the difference is in “ability in general,” not in “general ability” (g). Given that the main ingredient of the strong association between IQ and a broad range of social correlates is g, and given that there is no sex difference in g, then the average IQ sex-difference favoring males must be attributed to specific group factors and test specificity.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2) and to test the hypothesis that the different types of behavioral regulation can be combined on a single factor to assess autonomous and controlled motivation. Data were collected from 550 members of private fitness centres who ranged in age from 14 to 69 years. The analysis supported an 18-item, 5-factor model after excluding one item (S-Bχ2 = 221.7, df = 125, p = .000, S-Bχ2/df = 1.77; SRMR = .06; NNFI = .90; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .04, 90% CI = .03-.05). However, the analysis also revealed a lack of internal consistency. The results of a hierarchical model based on 2 second-order factors that reflected controlled motivation (external and introjected regulation) and autonomous motivation (identified and intrinsic regulation) provided an acceptable fit to the data (S-Bχ2 = 172.6, df = 74, p = .000, SB-χ2/df = 2.33; SRMR = .07; NNFI = .90; CFI = .92; RMSEA= .05, 90% CI = .04-.06), with reliability coefficients of .75 for controlled motivation and .76 for autonomous motivation. The study findings indicated that when item 17 was excluded, the Portuguese BREQ-2 was an appropriate measure of the controlled and autonomous motivation in exercise.