Search

Over the past few decades of psychological research, there has been an important increase in both the application of multidisciplinary or collaborative science and in training and research that emphasizes social justice and cultural humility. In the current article, we report on the use of the "Paper Chase" as a team science training and research experience that also facilitates cultural humility in research and when working in teams. The Paper Chase is a synchronous writing exercise originally conceptualized by a cohort of health service psychology interns to reduce lag time between article writing and submission (Schaumberg et al., 2015). The Paper Chase involves a group of trainees coming together for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 9 or more hours) with the aim of writing and submitting a full article for publication. In the current article, we extend a previous report on the Paper Chase by formally linking the training experience to the four phases of team science: development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. We also discuss ways in which the Paper Chase as a training experience can promote cultural humility. Finally, we provide updated recommendations for successfully completing a Paper Chase project. Overall, the authors of this article who were predoctoral psychology interns across two recent cohorts at one academic medical center reported positive experiences from the Paper Chase. In addition, the present study suggests that the Paper Chase can be used as one activity that facilitates critical training in team science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As handheld devices, such as tablets, become a common tool in schools, a critical and urgent question for the research community is to assess their potential impact on educational outcomes. Previous meta-analytic research has evidenced the "screen inferiority effect": Readers tend to understand texts slightly worse when reading on-screen than when reading the same text in print. Most primary studies from those meta-analyses used computers as on-screen reading devices. Accordingly, the extent to which handheld devices, which provide a reading experience closer to books than computers, are affected by the screen inferiority effect remains an open question. To address this issue, we reviewed relevant literature regarding potential moderating factors for the screen inferiority effect through the lenses of the reading for understanding framework. We then performed two meta-analyses aimed at examining the differences in reading comprehension when reading on handheld devices, as compared to print. Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participant (k = 38, g = −0.113) or within-participant (k = 21, g = −0.103) designs, consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension. Moderator analyses helped to partially clarify the results, indicating in some cases a higher screen inferiority effect for undergraduate students (as compared to primary and secondary school students) and for participants who were assessed individually (as opposed to in groups). We discuss the need to continue fostering print reading in schools while developing effective ways to incorporate handheld devices for reading purposes. Educational Impact and Implications Statement: Handheld devices, such as tablets, are widely used in schools as reading devices. Our synthesis of existing studies indicates that readers comprehend slightly better when they read a text in print as opposed to on a handheld device. In-print reading can be considered as an efficient way to promote students' text comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed classification accuracy of paper-and-pencil and computerized cognitive batteries at subacute (SA; 1-11 days) and early chronic (EC; ∼4 months) phases of pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (pmTBI). Two statistical approaches focused on single-subject performance (individual task scores, total impairments) were used to maximize clinical utility., Method: Two hundred thirty-five pmTBI and 169 healthy controls (HC) participants aged 8-18 were enrolled, with a subset (190 pmTBI; 160 HC) returning for the EC visit. The paper-and-pencil battery included several neuropsychological tests selected from recommended common data elements, whereas computerized testing was performed with the Cogstate Brief Battery. Hierarchical logistic regressions (base model: Parental education and premorbid reading abilities; full model: Base model and cognitive testing variables) were used to examine sensitivity/specificity, with diagnosis as the dependent variable., Results: Number Sequencing and Cogstate One-Card Learning accuracy significantly predicted SA diagnosis (full model accuracy = 71.6%-71.7%, sensitivity = 80.6%-80.8%, specificity = 59.1%-59.6%), while only immediate recall was significant at EC visit (accuracy = 68.5%, sensitivity = 74.6%, specificity = 61.5%). Other measures (Letter Fluency, Cogstate Detection, and One-Card Learning accuracy) demonstrated higher proportions of impairment for pmTBI subacutely (pmTBI: 11.5%-19.8%; HC: 3.7%-6.1%) but did not improve classification accuracy. Evidence of multiple impairments across the entire testing battery significantly predicted diagnosis at both visits (full model accuracy = 66.2%-68.6%, sensitivity = 71.2%-78.9%, specificity = 54.3%-61.5%)., Conclusions: Current results suggest similar modest diagnostic accuracy for computerized and paper-and-pencil batteries across multiple pmTBI phases. Moreover, findings suggest the total number of impairments may be more clinically useful than any single test or cognitive domain in terms of diagnostic accuracy at both assessment points. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

In this editorial we describe the clinician/administrator/researcher experience of frustration or confusion around how to effectively advocate for policy change in health care. By the end of the piece the reader will (a) understand the importance of health professionals' advocacy; (b) know how to use policy papers to advocate; and (c) understand how policy organizations use policy papers. We also discuss the National Academies of Medicine, Science, & Engineering High Quality Primary Care report as an example of a policy paper, introduce our new coeditors for the Policy and Management Department, and describe the Collaborative Family Health Care Association's new policy principles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Women in academia publish fewer papers and receive fewer citations than men. These gender gaps likely reflect systemic biases operating over several levels, from journal editorial policies to academic career progression. This study sought to characterize gender gaps for publications and citations in the field of gambling studies. Method: An automated gender inference procedure classified authors' binarized gender from their first names. Gender gaps were computed for publications and citations of papers in gambling studies, using the wider field of addiction science as a benchmark. Publication data were scraped from eight peer-reviewed gambling/addictions journals and separately from all gambling publications listed in PubMed. Results: Men authored 16% more publications than women among gambling papers and 23% more publications among nongambling addictions papers. Although robust gender gaps were observed in specialist gambling journals, we find limited overall evidence for gender inequality being greater in gambling studies. Indeed, among nongambling addiction papers, men published more, despite a greater apparent representation of women in the field. The gender gap was most pronounced for the last authorships, denoting seniority. Among the first authorships, there was variability between journals, and some journals displayed approximate parity. There was limited evidence for any corresponding gender gap in citation counts. Conclusions: Gender gaps in gambling research, and addiction science more broadly, adhere to wider trends in academia, including the associations with academic seniority. Variability between individual journals supports the role of journal editorial policies to increase the representation and visibility of women researchers in addiction science. Public Health Significance Statement: We characterize gender biases in publishing associated with academic seniority in the field of gambling studies, against a benchmark of papers from addiction science. Journal editorial policies should strive to increase the representation and visibility of women researchers in addiction science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]