JCCAP FDF/2018/Day 1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Block I (9:15 am-10:30 am)[edit]

Strategies for Improving Writing Clarity[edit]

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Maryland at College Park, Director of Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention Program (CAIP), Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Founding Program Chair of JCCAP's Future Directions Forum. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.

Description[edit]

People tend to be drawn to and understand information best when it is communicated to them in the form of a narrative or “story” rather than a list of facts. However, researchers rarely receive formal training on leveraging narrative tools when writing about their academic work. In this workshop, Dr. Andres De Los Reyes describes evidence-based strategies for consistently applying narrative structure to academic work, with a focus on preparing manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed academic journals.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Randy Olson was a professor at New Hampshire and went off to film school and learned things that he wished he learned before.
  • “Buts and Therefores to help connect ideas
  • Discuss narrative tools and stories
  • Fact after fact after fact… to make it maximally memorable then you need to guide them
  • Gettysburg Address: Story of the Nation, Principles of founded on, how to make sure they endure, it is about how you say it with a beginning middle and end (3 acts structure)
  • De Los Reyes et al. 2017, Psychological Assessment Abstract: The antithesis is needing a bridge
  • Peoples brains react to stories, take it in process it and then comprehend and save to memory
  • AND is thesis, Antithesis is But, however and introduces the conflict, the Therefore aka synthesis or how you bring it back together or the solution- The ABT’s
  • Color code abstract with the ABT
  • IMRAD: introduction, methods, results and discussion, but this is just the structure of the house not a complete narrative
  • Think of one Word to describe your paper.
  • Drawing certainty from what info is useful and what is noise between adolescent and parent.
  • The peer confederate is the referee, whose response is correlating low with the peer.
  • The word: Peer Reports
  • Try to say it in 20 words or less to use as the cell to build out.
  • Sentence piece: Nothing in… makes sense except in the light of …
  • Elevator Pitch: 1 2 3:
  • Use ABT to break up what you found in the study, you see holes and you try to use what you know and find to fill that gap
  • Take and but and therefore to get the whole paper to less than 250
  • The last piece of the template is Paragraph: reference back to the 3 act structure of the film
  • In a world is the intro, Method is the facts and Discussion is most of the synthesis.
  • Talk about what you found
  • Limitations is where you talk about conflict
  • 3 acts apply to Discussion section as well
  • What Field knows and what the field doesn't know and what the field should do going forward
  • Packet: Diagnose the Abstracts with AAA: this and this and this,
  • DHY: too many conflicts that lose them.
  • Abstract 1: A lot of conflicts introduced with despite, however, and yet… gives you a headache. It should make it not hard to understand if you aren’t an expert
  • Abstract 2: ABT
  • Abstract 3: AAA, a lot of facts and examples, you don’t know what they are selling, and the resolution
  • Continuum between sells something or doesn’t sell a thing.
  • Use ABT for abstract and manuscript, results is mostly the facts/ands. The Intro is antithesis set up, the Discussion ABT as well and synthesis
  • Discussion: layout what you found and if it is consistent with other work and therefore what that means and maybe why, what should we do to resolve the inconsistency in future work
  • AAA you are more likely to skip it and DHY is more likely to skim ABT more likely to stick through and read it.

Disseminating Science Through Wikipedia and Wikiversity[edit]

Dr. Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.[edit]

Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Psychiatry, and the Acting Director of Center for Excellence in Research and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Past President (’16) and President-elect (’18) of Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Co-Founder of Helping Give Away Psychological Science, and Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Korea University. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Assessment, and the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. He also has extensive experience in disseminating knowledge about evidenced-based practices using the Wikipedia and Wikiversity platforms.

Description[edit]

Wouldn’t it be cool if the best evidence was read by millions of people, and freely available to anyone? Psychological science can show up on the first screen of hits on a Google search, and you can help speed that along. Wikipedia and Wikiversity offer powerful tools for disseminating knowledge to diverse audiences, including scientists and other key stakeholders (e.g., parents, practitioners, policymakers). This seminar shows ways to leverage these tools for disseminating knowledge, reaching a wider audience and accelerating collaboration. In this workshop, Dr. Eric Youngstrom will provide attendees with the know-how for using Wikipedia and Wikiversity, with a focus on the use of these platforms for increasing access to knowledge and resources relevant to evidence-based assessments and treatments of child and adolescent mental health. His team also will discuss new student projects, funding opportunities, and travel awards.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Eric’s wife is his reality fairy with regards to assessment
    • She wouldn’t use his new, excellent measure because it was too long or too expensive
    • So, he needed short, free measures
    • Free measures have no advertising budget, and thus are less likely to be used in clinical practice; another method of free advertisement is necessary
    • What’s the best way to get it out there? Lab website? That doesn’t work because it gets little traffic. What about the SCCAP website? Also very low in page rank.
    • But, Wikipedia is the 5th most popular site and has a deal with Google to always be on the first screen full of hits
    • Many pages are “locked” that are about big topics like politicians or celebrities until you advance in the eyes of the automated system
    • You are seen as a better editor based on number of edits that no one challenges, not degrees or education
  • What is Wikiversity?
    • You can upload a figure with copyright via Wikipedia
    • Run by the same people as Wikipedia
    • So, there’s no cost to build things
    • Goal is to help people with teaching
    • Audience is researchers and clinicians while Wikipedia audience is general public
  • Idea of building two pages at a time: one on Wikipedia for the general public and one on Wikiversity for the teaching part and complex material
    • The Wiki people love wiki-to-wiki links
    • Hard to use in actual classwork right off the bat because editors ruin student work sometimes, and it will be a lot of battles trying not to offend or break rules
  • Model of pairing students and early career people with clinicians and content experts to bridge the gap
  • What is HGAPS?
    • Was borne out of a $1500 grant for pizza
    • A student service club and nonprofit to allow people to do community service
    • HGAPS can give travel awards to folks outside of UNC
    • HGAPS can provide technical support, consultation, pizza for a new chapter at a different university
  • If a measure is online, we could make it so people can take it
    • So, HGAPS is putting measures into Qualtrics
    • Includes piped scoring and links to other resources
    • This has been done on the screening center for the depression and bipolar support alliance (DBSA)
  • There is a Weebly site for FDF that is uneditable for us, BUT, we have a place to put it on Wikiversity
  • WIkipedia tutorial
    • There is a talk page that is the backside of every article where people make comments about page content or ask questions
    • The “View history” lets you see the pages history and serves as the track changes function
    • Question to consider: Do you want to use an alias or a real name?
    • There’s a visual editor which allows users to easily add and change content and then click “publish changes”
  • An example of how well Wiki works
    • Cipriani paper about antidepressant function in children
    • 2 years after, the info is still not on Effective Child Therapy website
    • The information got onto Wikipedia in 3 hours

Networking at Conferences[edit]

Dr. Deborah A.G. Drabick, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology at Temple University, and Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP). Her expertise is broadly in developmental psychopathology, and more specifically in youth externalizing problems. Her work includes such areas as risk and resilience, co-occurring psychological conditions, contextual influences, and intervention. Dr. Drabick has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, American Psychological Foundation, PA Department of Health, and Temple University.

Dr. Matthew D. Lerner, Ph.D.[edit]

Assistant Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, & Pediatrics, and Director of Stony Brook Social Competence and Treatment Lab at Stony Brook University. His research focuses on understanding mechanisms of and developing interventions for social and emotional functioning (in particular peer relations) among children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and ADHD. He has received over $8 million in funding for his work from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, American Psychological Foundation, Simons Foundation, Alan Alda Fund for Communication, Arts Connection, and Pershing Charitable Trust.

Description[edit]

 To an early career scientist, attending professional meetings can be an overwhelming experience, with many opportunities to not only learn new things but also connect with like-minded scholars in the field. In this workshop, Drs. Deborah Drabick and Matthew Lerner demystify the process of networking at conferences, and provide attendees with concrete tools for developing and maintaining professional relationships with conference attendees.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Why Network?

  • Some things vital to your career are not taught in grad school. However, these skills are no less important.
  • Academia functions like an old school society similar to a fraternity; who you know is a critical aspect. Back in the day networking was even more important than it is now, psychology is still an interpersonal field of work and making the right connections can be incredibly helpful.
  • Networking is not just important for undergraduates, but also true for post-bacs, grad students, and even postdocs.

How to Network

  • Genuinely ask yourself why you want to do it. Don’t just sell yourself. Talk to them like a person. It’s best to talk about what’s organic and comfortable for you. What you’re interested in is a good start.
  • It’s fine to tell the other person you’re a fan of their work, but try not to drown them in complements. It could potentially make them uncomfortable.
  • Take context cues on what to talk to them about. IT’S OK TO BE A PERSON AND ACT LIKE ONE. You’re not just going to have one shot to make a good impression on them. It’s fine if you just talk about normal things (basketball, your university, etc.), but if there is a cue to talk about academic things that’s fine too.
  • Think about something you really genuinely want to talk about to make things more organic. Some people use the trick of checking out the person’s papers beforehand to find a question to prime the conversation. Think of something you’re genuinely curious about or that you have on common with research. That will spur a reciprocal conversation. Show that you’ve been thoughtful.
  • Choose your moment wisely, don’t interrupt or force something. They will ultimately think, “Would I want to work with this person?” You want a positive experience for them to look back on to remember you.
  • Be comfortable sharing your own work too. Have a brief summary of your own research/ interests prepared and be prepared to explain it to them.
  • Keep the idea in mind that, this is not just about furthering your career but also about making connections. Don’t feel like you have to talk about a specific thing.
  • 80% of your time at a conference needs to be focused on networking/making connections. 20% should be focused on the actual academic materials.. The closer you get to this ratio the closer to your goals you become.
  • Be nice to people and be nice about people. Reputations are contagious. How you present yourself is important and you don’t want to become known as someone who speaks badly of others.
  • How do people see you? Think of your demand characteristics. Be aware of yourself and how you appear not just physically. Just be a gracious person and if you need to be by yourself, take a rest. If you know you’re not in the mood to be nice, take a break.

Who should I network with?

  • A good trick is to find 2 or 3 people that you connect with that you would say hello to at future events/conference.
  • Networking can happen anywhere. Once you’re in the car on the way to your conference opportunities begin. It can happen anywhere when you’re in conference mode. Airport, hotel lobby, etc. Long relationships can be formed from small moments. (Self care is important, however, and it’s ok if you need to go back to your room to recharge)
  • The consequence of venerating people you’re impressed by is that they cease to be people in your eyes. If you’re nervous to speak to someone, try the exposure approach to get yourself used to them. Make a point to introduce yourself to the person you’re most scared to talk to.
  • Contact tools like business cards can be helpful. Rather than try to remember to email, give the person a physical thing that they can use to remember. Email lists on your posters can be a useful strategy as well.
  • Make use of your phone/device! Don’t think “I’ll remember.” WRITE IT DOWN.
  • Leave the person wanting more. Don’t cling on them. Have a good short interaction. That’s a lot better than overwhelming the person.
  • Present your work and be proud of it. Don’t apologize for your research and how it’s not perfect. However, understand that you’re just starting out. However it’s don’t be afraid to talk about challenges. Those are common ground for any researcher.
  • Care about what you’re talking about. Don’t worry about how long your CV is. Even if it’s your first couple of posters, be excited. Even though you’ve seen your work over and over again, it’s new to the other person.
  • Be generous, with your time, with your advice, with your help. People remember who wants to help and who tries to help.
  • Ask a fail-safe question. “What are you working on NOW?” Sometimes a question of yours is about research they did 10 years ago.
  • Another fail-safe is to ask about process issues. “How did you handle (blank) in your paper?” “We struggled with (blank), how did you overcome it?”
  • Attend a presentation by the person. You’ll most likely have plenty of questions.
  • What are the current events in the field? Ask the person about them or their opinion on them. However be mindful on how you ask! Some topics are controversial and should be broached carefully. You could talk about a shared experience on the topic. Or link the topic to their research and ask questions about it.
  • How to end the conversation. Think about follow-up and how to remain connected, however, don’t ask for anything. Don’t ask them to send you their paper. Don’t ask them for information or action. End on a positive note.

What if you’re social or not?

  • If you’re social: Think of what both people are getting out of the conversation. Don’t feel like you need to speak to everyone. Be mindful of dominating conversations. Think of what everyone else in the conversation is getting out of it. In general, when you are approaching a person, pause and ask “ what does the other person expect and what will they tolerate in the conversation. What will make the other person feel the l positive about the conversation?
  • If you’re less social, know quality of interaction over quantity of interaction. Think of fail-safe questions that could spur a conversation.

How to maximize opportunities.

  • Attend a presentation by the professor or one of their students. How can you broach the relationship but still be respectful of the persons time?
  • Know what they’re working on.
  • Talk to as many people as possible.
  • Ask about their career setting. What do you they like about the setting? What is a challenge? What would they want to change?
  • Be strategic on who you talk to. Collaborators cannot write letters of support for tenor.
  • Talk about academic culture and what’s changing more broadly.
  • Your advisors and mentors are the best wing-people to help you network. If you’re nervous about introducing yourself, you could always ask them to help you with the initial meeting.

Preparing Your First Grant as a Principal Investigator (Block I)[edit]

Dr. Joshua M. Langberg, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology, and Director of Promoting Adolescent School Success (P.A.S.S.) research group at Virginia Commonwealth University, and Associate Editor for the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (JACP). His research focuses on improving the behavioral and academic functioning of children, adolescents, and emerging adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and on disseminating evidence-based interventions for youth with ADHD into community settings. He has received over $12 million in funding from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and Virginia Foundation for Healthy Youth.

Dr. Tara S. Peris, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, and Program Director of the UCLA ABC Partial Hospitalization Program at the UCLA Semel Institute. Her research focuses on developing strategies for optimizing treatment outcome for difficult-to-treat cases of anxiety, OCD, and related conditions. She is the recipient of a career development award from the National Institute of Mental Health, a NARSAD Young Investigator Award, and awards from the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation, the Trichotillomania Learning Center, and the Friends of the Semel Institute.

Description[edit]

 Submitting your first grant as a Principal Investigator (PI) can appear on the surface to be a daunting task, with many expectations, requirements, and complicated forms. In this workshop, Drs. Joshua Langberg and Tara Peris leverage their years of experience with extramural funding to explain the grant submission process, and provide attendees with concrete tools for submitting successful grant applications.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Paste Notes Here

Block II (10:45 am-12:00 pm)[edit]

Strategies for Writing Training Grants[edit]

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Maryland at College Park, Director of Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention Program (CAIP), Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Founding Program Chair of JCCAP's Future Directions Forum. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.

Description[edit]

This workshop serves as a companion to our workshop on writing clarity (“Strategies for Improving Writing Clarity”). In this workshop, Dr. Andres De Los Reyes describes narrative tools for writing clear and successful training grant applications for submission to funding agencies. The examples used during the workshop refer to applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. However, the principles covered in this workshop apply generally to how one uses narrative tools to construct funding applications.

Workshop Materials[edit]

Notes

Click "Expand" for notes
  • There are many resources online that are helpful outside of this talk that De Los Reyes has compiled on his slides
  • Also the slides are on the drop box
  • Why are grants useful
    • They force you to nitty-gritty your work several steps ahead of it
    • Get you thinking about all of the nitty-gritty details
    • Helpful for getting feedback for your work
  • When to write a training grant
    • If you have a set of ideas you want to learn about, in which your mentor can cover some of them, but you need another person to help
      • Using training grants as a bridge between academics you want to work with
    • Innovative idea that cannot be done in the lab
    • Good way to find resources
    • Good practice for later even if it doesn’t get funded
    • You could write a paper based off of your training grant
  • Trainable skills to reach for when you grant write (i.e. how to write a universally good grant)
    • Research is obviously important
    • Tells a compelling story
    • Shows in-depth knowledge and immersion in the field and in a specific topic
  • Grant writing and knowing the audience is similar to the skill of a comedian
    • Tailored to the audience, word-by-word analysis of what works
    • Practice practice practice!!!
    • Get tons of feedback over and over, testing out different language to make sure it is in pique form
    • Hard to be appealing to all different types of audience members/grant reviewers, so try to find a way to tell the story that appeals to many types of audience members
      • Expert
      • Non-expert
      • Skilled scientist
      • Technical expert
      • Non-scientist
  • Using narrative structure
    • Use concepts over and over, don’t mix terms because it will be really confusing (i.e. use lust depression, not depression, mood, etc.)
  • Specific aims page
    • What the area is,
    • What the gaps are,
    • What you plan to do,
    • What the future holds and how you fit in to it
  • Video: The Patterns of Introductions in AIMS Pages
    • Focuses on rhetorical patterns in introductions
    • First sentence: general context, also establishes significance
    • Narrowing context: down to your area
    • Your research contribution
    • Complication
    • Long term goal (down the road aim)
    • Specific goal of this research application
    • Hypothesis explicitly stated
    • Summary of research path to hypothesis
    • Addition to specific research goal
    • Qualifications stressed
    • Basically: Setting up the facts, upending the facts by the gap in literature, and setting up how you will fix it and synthesis
      • In the long-term future, this is how it should be fixing and I play a role in solving this piece
  • Video:
    • Specific aims doesn’t have to take up a lot of spec
    • Short, skimmable, typically bolded
    • Numbered would be good
    • Doesn’t have to long because a lot of the heavy lifting was done in intro to specific aims section
    • Sub hypotheses of the main hypothesis (in example, it was 3)
    • Helps to deconstruct the logic flow of your hypothesis and helps to distill it in the actual research proposal to a brief and condensed specific aims section
    • Start off with overall goal, then, if I’m right, I should observe these 2 or 3 things, and these things are the secondary aims
  • AND, BUT, THEREFORE (this is what I plan to do and this is why I’m qualified to do it, this is what it means to the future of psychology)
  • Aims are technically separated and you don’t need one to work for others to work; they don’t depend upon one another
  • Future directions element is SO IMPORTANT; need to know that it is an investment in the future and also gives readers a good sense that writer has good vision
  • If specific aims is good, then it really fills out a to-do list for the remainder of a grant, similar to how a really good abstract is sound model for the whole paper
  • Ambitious is a bad word, because it implies that the plan isn’t sound and makes audience uncomfortable and unconfident in your ability to carry out the project
  • Sometimes hard to find support financially in something that is a novel question that you really love, so you could compromise by curbing a grant a little to the pillars of a grant-giving body and by doing a small piece first, then reach for a bigger piece
    • However sometimes, if you feel you shouldn’t compromise, you should stay true to that and muck through any way you can to do what you are most curious about and take a stand
    • Finding balance between collective good and one’s own interests

Work-Life Balance[edit]

Sarah J. Racz, Ph.D.[edit]

Assistant Clinical Professor in Department of Psychology, and Research Educator for First-Year Innovation & Research Experience (FIRE) program at the University of Maryland at College Park. Her research seeks to understand both the proximal (e.g., parenting, family functioning) and distal (e.g., neighborhoods, schools) influences on child externalizing behaviors. Dr. Racz is also interested in the application of statistical models of change. Her research has appeared in such journals as the Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, Psychological Assessment, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review.

Joshua M. Langberg, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology, and Director of Promoting Adolescent School Success (P.A.S.S.) research group at Virginia Commonwealth University, and Associate Editor for the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (JACP). His research focuses on improving the behavioral and academic functioning of children, adolescents, and emerging adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and on disseminating evidence-based interventions for youth with ADHD into community settings. He has received over $12 million in funding from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and Virginia Foundation for Healthy Youth.

Description[edit]

Sometimes it feels like everyone in our field is “always on task” and unable to “unplug”. But is that a realistic view of how we balance our work lives with our lives outside of work? In this workshop, Drs. Joshua Langberg and Sarah Racz discuss the competing demands placed on us across our various work, family, and social spheres; and strategies to manage these demands in the necessary pursuit of healthy, balanced lives.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Dr. Langberg's presentation:[edit]

  • Dr. Langberg has worked in the university and hospital setting.
  • How to change things in your life to get a better work-life balance. Work-life balance does not mean your life is easy, it means that you put your time where you needed it and satisfied with your week, In process of being a full professor, Being efficient gives you more time
  • Know Thyself: first important step, look at ourselves and time and self-reflect
  • Practice what you preach- set clear goals
  • 1. What are your priorities? Find them and then operationalize them. You need to be specific what does it mean to you when you say you are prioritizing work/exercise, write it like a treatment plan.
  • Newton’s 3rd Law, you can’t just add you also have to think of what other areas of life it will impact and what it will subtract or change
  • 2. Map your current choices and schedule
  • 3. Make Conscious Choices: do things by thinking about implications so you don’t feel bad later when you realize implications later. If you do these things like going out to watch tv for 4 hours it is saying you prioritize tv over other things in your life.
  • Priority
  • Goal: Making goal work means an equal reaction somewhere else
  • The Choice
  • Reaction
  • Re-evaluate if not working, and then make new choices or adjust the plan to accomplish the goal so you feel good about yourself.
  • Routine and Structure: consistency makes systematic changes easier and planning ahead of time easier. Living in the moment means you have to make decisions on the spot of what your priorities are at that moment so it is harder to make conscious choices.
  • Set Yourself Up for Success: Knowing yourself and when are you at your best when and how you are at your best.
  • Acceptance: Life situations make it hard to not live that structured way so if you accept it and do the best you can then it will make it easier for you to not feel bad about yourself.
  • OR find the middle ground.
  • Workflow ebbs and flows and motivate yourself in downtime to do things earlier and force yourself to complete it when not busy even if the due date is far out. Crank it to get ahead.
  • Learn to delegate and trust the team and let go.
  • Some have more privileged situations where they have more support or flexibility.

Dr. Racz Presentation:[edit]

  • Having a Young Family While Working in Academia
  • Is it really possible to have it all? Yes but you can’t have it all at once-Oprah
  • The Plan and then what happens actually
  • First years getting involved in faculty lead research labs
  • Have a plan but be flexible and adjust
  • Women obtain the position of tenure later in life and tenure slower to achieve
  • More pressure on women to be caretaker
  • Strategies for Success:
  • Be flexible with your plan and have procedures and people to help you roll with punches
  • Think outside of the box of how to obtain a job that might not be tenure-track jobs
  • RTI international HQ in NC great out of the box jobs for clinical psychologist
  • Split Shift: Work hours are not 9am-5pm but distributed throughout the day.
  • Be organized: by prepping as much as you can before the next day to make it less chaotic. Prioritize! Calendars and share them, lists and family management apps like Cozi Family Organizer and BabyConnect
  • Be a Good Communicator: Divide & Conquer with Husband and get a plan that works for you. Full Time and Part time, Logistics, Ask for help and use your village
  • Be a Superstar: put your very best forward especially in beginning by building a good report so they will be more flexible and be understanding later in your life.
  • Advocate for yourself and ask questions
  • Be present by being productive and cut out diddle dabbling and put phone email and computer away during family time
  • Accept limits
  • What do you value and what is important to you
  • Do something small that you enjoy every day
  • "There is no such thing as work-life balance. Everything worth fighting for unbalances your Life." - Alain de Bottom
  • How to integrate 2 worlds into your life not as managing 2 poles as opposites.
  • Ebs and Flows
  • Knowing that things aren't sustainable
  • Communicate: your schedule and plan when you can work
  • Set the tone and expectations
  • Planning couple time is important instead of being spontaneous, so block off
  • There is no perfect time to have a baby so do it when it feels right
  • Graduate school is ridiculously demanding, knowing that writing manuscripts is the most important thing you do but never urgent and so you run around doing urgent things
  • Accountability and Writing clubs are helpful to make writing meetings,
  • Always try to improve that balance
  • Writing and being productive, make sure what you’re doing has a bigger purpose like motivation. Make things work for you
  • 35 students in 2 different training labs
  • There is a season for everything

Starting a Lab[edit]

Dr. Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.[edit]

Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Psychiatry, and the Acting Director of Center for Excellence in Research and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Past President (’16) and President-elect (’18) of Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Co-Founder of Helping Give Away Psychological Science, and Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Korea University. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Assessment, and the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. He also has extensive experience in disseminating knowledge about evidenced-based practices using the Wikipedia and Wikiversity platforms.

Dr. Matthew D. Lerner, Ph.D.[edit]

Assistant Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, & Pediatrics, and Director of Stony Brook Social Competence and Treatment Lab at Stony Brook University. His research focuses on understanding mechanisms of and developing interventions for social and emotional functioning (in particular peer relations) among children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and ADHD. He has received over $8 million in funding for his work from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, American Psychological Foundation, Simons Foundation, Alan Alda Fund for Communication, Arts Connection, and Pershing Charitable Trust.

Description[edit]

Are you in the process of starting a lab or aspire to start your own lab? Remember that class you took on lab startup? Of course, you don’t: No one takes a class in starting a lab! That is what this workshop is for! Drs. Matthew Lerner and Eric Youngstrom both established their own laboratories in a variety of academic settings that interface with multiple campus units including Departments of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics. On the basis of these experiences, attendees will learn from the experts on key considerations with starting a lab, including selecting and purchasing equipment, hiring competent staff, recruiting graduate students, and progressing along the tenure track.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Outline:
    • When to start thinking about it?
    • What are your lab goals?
    • What do you need to achieve those goals?
    • What do you want?
    • What will make you happy?
    • Things they wish they knew at the beginning
  • When should you start thinking about it? Now
  • Lab goals?
    • What kinds of studies are you hoping to run? What population? Experiments or observation?
    • Different types of study goals mean you need vastly different resources
    • Do you want to do studies that require grants?
    • What size lab do you want?
    • (Dr. Lerner uses basecamp, $300 per year, to manage his large lab of ~55 people where grad students and postdocs run teams)
  • Team structure and culture-
    • Do you want to have hierarchical structure with you at the top or more horizontal where people move across groups
    • Talk with people who have similar labs to get their ideas about structure and setup
    • How do you want your time to be spent as well as the lab members'?
    • Dr. Lerner has meetings most of the day every day
    • Dr. Youngstrom has all meetings in the afternoon and saves the morning for the “big 3” (writing, meditation, and exercise)
    • Time that you invest now buys you more freedom later once everything is off the ground
    • Procedures help a lot to establish a pattern of the lab running independently of you
    • Dr. Lerner suggests ripple or researcher as possibilities to keep track of participants and redcap to do data collection (this is just what he does and may not be the most helpful in all cases)
    • When a lab is smaller or brand new, members often are jacks of all trades out of necessity
    • How do you sell it to undergrads when it’s new? "You get to work closely with me since there are so few and have a deep understanding of how the lab works." Also, you can offer them existing data that you have to write up together
    • What type of measurement will you use? It can take a while to get things like fMRI set up and also costs hundreds per scan
      • You have to trust members to use expensive equipment  
    • Will your work be community focused? Do you want your work to have tangible benefit to the local people? Rather than data collection at first, Dr. Lerner did talks and groups so the community he wanted to work with would know him
      • People may be wary of you “doing science to them” or their kids
      • Dr. Lerner also sends out newsletter to community
    • Do you want to involve policy? If so, you need to write policy briefs in non-science language and help people understand why it matters to them
    • Are you all science, all the time?
    • Are you looking toward grants? Can your lab survive without them?  
  • What do you need to achieve these goals?
    • Space- rooms, community, furniture (may be provided or out of startup)
    • Equipment
    • Personnel- grad students? Lab staff?
      • How to screen/interview undergrads? Dr. Lerner used a screening tool from his advisor that’s administratively specific so you know they follow directions and thereafter have those people pick people like them
      • Dr. Youngstrom suggests finding standouts in classes you or your grad students teach. And, use independent study as a next step and then possibly follow-up with thesis or post-bacc
    • Materials
    • Good relationship with IRB- might visit face-to-face after kickbacks so they know you’re trying to do things the right way
      • Can establish precedent- reference previously approved study that used specific protocol  
    • Awesome grad students
    • Great mentors
    • Clean, pretty, and secure lab
    • Start up money
  • What do you want?
    • Some people deeply desire being in rooms helping families so they want to be hands-on forever
    • Core study stream or lots of project types? Usually suggested pre-tenure to focus but really just focus on your passions
    • How much collaboration? Helpful, but things may take longer. So, have some things that are just yours
    • Number of student-led projects? Time consuming and possibly low dividends. Maybe 2 or less at a time early on
  • What will make you happy?
    • Productivity/lots of papers?
    • Having happy students? (Should have somewhat happy students, but where is this on your priorities list)
    • Successful students? How to manage the tension of their future success?
    • Amount of free time?
    • You can be happy and successful and meet your goals but there’s always more you can do but just pick your pace
    • Have friends!
  • What they wish they knew
    • Know the admins- director of undergrad/grad studies etc.
    • Other people don’t know why your stuff matters so sometimes you have to help there understand patiently
    • How to meet service requirements (paired with teaching and research requirements) so talk with mentors
    • Every university has its “thing” that’s hard- long IRB, no furniture included- don’t be deluded by grass being greener
    • Stuff takes time, sometimes a lot
    • People usually don’t want to make your life more difficult
  • Dr. Youngstrom’s announcements
    • How to write a lot- Silvia and Boyce- make writing a medium priority in short spurts more often like exercise  
    • What Color is your Parachute? Comes with new edition every year- figure out what matters to you
    • So Good They Can’t Ignore You- throws the idea of the parachute book under the bus and says following your dreams isn’t that helpful. He says figure out what skills you can learn to get paid to do then use these skills to renegotiate what you do using your value as leverage
  • Q & A
    • What kinds of projects don’t need grants? Student projects maybe that use materials that are free and can pay just a little to participants
      • Grants pay for stuff, people, participant compensation
    • How do you balance current aims at beginning with where you want to go? Yes keep doing what you’re doing and begin building toward later stuff but you may not end up doing stuff you thought you would

Job Search and Job Negotiations[edit]

Dr. Deborah A.G. Drabick, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology at Temple University, and Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP). Her expertise is broadly in developmental psychopathology, and more specifically in youth externalizing problems. Her work includes such areas as risk and resilience, co-occurring psychological conditions, contextual influences, and intervention. Dr. Drabick has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, American Psychological Foundation, PA Department of Health, and Temple University.

Dr. Tara S. Peris, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, and Program Director of the UCLA ABC Partial Hospitalization Program at the UCLA Semel Institute. Her research focuses on developing strategies for optimizing treatment outcome for difficult-to-treat cases of anxiety, OCD, and related conditions. She is the recipient of a career development award from the National Institute of Mental Health, a NARSAD Young Investigator Award, and awards from the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation, the Trichotillomania Learning Center, and the Friends of the Semel Institute.

Description[edit]

Do you plan to “go on the market” soon? Where is the best place online to search for job openings? How do you write your cover letter? Where do you find resources to assist you in preparing for the job interview? And when you get that job offer, how do you advocate for yourself and negotiate the right salary, benefits, and/or lab startup package? Drs. Deborah Drabick and Tara Peris leverage their extensive experience on “both sides” of job searches and negotiations to provide attendees with winning strategies for working their way through this multifaceted process.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Where to look:

  • Timing is important. Usually, universities will know in August or September if a position is available. They also usually want everything wrapped up and ready by January of the next year.
  • Fall conferences are important places to network for jobs.
  • Word of mouth is also a common way to find positions. Networking can be especially important here.
  • The job search process varies across institutions and fields. Skype interviews are more common at first. Everyone looks good on paper, but the interview is how they determine if you’re a good fit. The university then decides who they want to choose for in-person interviews.
  • The people you meet with be cross-sectional of the department. The university might pair you with interviewers in similar life situations (parent, gender, etc.), but might also pair you with someone who is the polar opposite. Looking at the goodness of fit for you in their department.
  • They will look at how transparent you are with your current position that you are looking elsewhere. If you don’t want the information shared, tell them why. However, know that information travels. If there is something wrong in your current situation, be diplomatic in the way you speak about it. Be professional. Understand that who you’re applying for might know the person you currently work for.
  • Think of why you’re looking for this job now and why it would be a good fit. Gear towards the positive. If something wasn't a good fit for your current position, find a positive take away.
  • Don’t be afraid to repeat yourself. There will be a lot of interviews. Have an elevator pitch for your research past prepared. And think about how you describe what you do and where you want to go in 5-10 year increments and a concise way to explain this.
  • If all goes well you will get a call and can decide if you want to go back and look further into the position. If you really feel like the position is the right fit for you.
  • In the beginning, you just want to wow them, but after you get that call you can relax and look at what it would be like to live in that place and work for them.
  • Think in more concrete terms now: What would you need to do your research? What support from this department would you have? How many people would you need?
  • Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Ask how they do things there. Ask if they have the equipment you need. Ask how many people use the equipment. Ask anything you feel would be important to your success there.
  • Think in more detail. How do collaborations work here? It’s best to leave it broad when you ask though. Don’t outright ask, “Who’s going to help me?” Ask how things work and who the people are that are doing it to get a better sense of how big the research team is/how much support from others you would have.
  • Cover letters and statements. Some universities like to see ones that are more process oriented instead of finished products. How you got where you are in your research and what you’d like to do in future research. Sort of, “Here’s what I do now and here’s what I see myself doing.” Try to see a few different options for your future research. They already have your CV. They already know what you’ve gotten done.
  • Don’t worry about bragging and don’t be self-effacing. Don’t minimize what you’ve done. Maximize what YOU DID and how it happened and what excited you about this. How you overcame challenges in your research journey. They want to see hunger and enthusiasm. You want to appear curious and hungry for knowledge, yet able to evolve with the changing times.

Explaining your teaching philosophy.

  • Inspiring creativity and curiosity and critical thinking are pretty common. Explain how you foster these certain things and how you hope to instill them in your students.
  • Touch on your own mentorships and consultations, etc. Explain how your teaching experience has given you strategies for teaching different types of people and learning styles. Try to fold in a concrete example of this and how you’ve demonstrated this yourself.
  • Teaching philosophy isn’t the most important thing but shows that you’re thinking about it.
  • Use examples of teaching tools and strategies you use that are your own idea to support your ideas of what you what to instill in your students.

What can you ask for after the offer comes?

  • Salary. Is it on par for the community you’re going to be living in? Is it for the university? Is it for your family situation (kids?)?
  • What will your title be at the university? (most likely assistant professor)
  • Space. How much space will you have to do your research? Will your grad students have offices too? How much space will you have to run your study? This varies wildly by the institution.
  • Don’t take anything for granted. Ask how things normally work. You will most likely get a pool of start-up funds. However, this will also vary wildly depending on the university.
  • Think of what you will need for your research. Will you need a lab manager? Will you need a postdoc? Some people come to their interview with their start-up fund plan. Have it broken down a little bit. Know what you need, but also be reasonable about it. Have the reasons to justify asking for the funds. If the department is interested they will do what they can to get it.
  • It is not advisable to give them an ultimatum. Don’t say “I need this or it’s no deal.” However, inquiring about what’s possible is completely okay.
  • You can ask if you can have more time before moving if you need it. If you need to wrap a research project up or use grant money, etc.
  • Think about housing, parking, childcare, and what you will need to be happy in this position.
  • ULTIMATELY ASK FOR MORE THAN YOU WANT. You’re not going to get it all. Aim high, but not in the realm of absurd.
  • Book: Women Don’t Ask For It. Good to read when preparing to negotiate. Especially for women but can benefit everyone.
  • Look at how the position will benefit you in the future, but also in the now. State schools salaries are public, so you can use that to get a ballpark on salary. If you know someone who recently got a job, ask them what they asked for. Once your offer is given to you, it can’t be taken away from you if you ask for too much, so don’t be afraid of that.

What to say:

  • Be excited and gracious about the offer!
  • Before you start negotiating to show your enthusiasm. Then you can go into “Can you clarify a few things? I’m curious about (blank).”
  • Then to finish you thank them again for being so helpful and a follow-up such as, “I’ll be discussing this with my family,( etc.) and get back to you.”
  • Ultimately all of it is an opportunity to network even if you don’t want the job in the end.

General tips:

  • Be transparent. Don't worry about them knowing you’re looking for positions elsewhere.
  • Approach negotiation like a collaboration.
  • SEND THANK YOU NOTES TO EVERY PERSON EVERY TIME AND DO IT AT EVERY STAGE. If they don’t get a thank you note, they don’t know how interested you are.
  • Trust your gut. If something doesn’t feel like the right fit, it might not be for you. If it doesn’t feel like the right place it might not be and that’s okay.

Block III (1:15 pm-2:30 pm)[edit]

Responding to Peer Review Commentary[edit]

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Maryland at College Park, Director of Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention Program (CAIP), Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Founding Program Chair of JCCAP's Future Directions Forum. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.

Description[edit]

Publishing academic work often involves submitting scholarly manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. A key component of the publishing process involves receiving commentary about your work from peers in your field and satisfactorily responding to such commentary. Despite it being a core feature of the publishing process, researchers rarely receive formal training on responding to peer review commentary. In this workshop, Dr. Andres De Los Reyes describes evidence-based strategies for responding to peer review commentary, including strategies for how to compose cover letters for responding to such commentary.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Why do this workshop?
    • There’s no class on the process
    • We need to appreciate why this process is here
  • What do we mean by “gross anatomy of peer review process”
    • Gross anatomy has to do with structures visible to the naked eye so we want to make everything visible and understandable
  • Brief primer on peer review process
    • Author picks journal
    • Prepares submission in right format
    • Author submits with cover letter
    • Editor selects action editor
    • Who selects reviewers
    • Reviewed
    • May get revise and resubmit
    • Editor and reviewer selection
      • Editorial board
      • Action editor
      • Reviewers
    • Most journals take 2-3 months to hear back though medical journals are faster
    • Action editor reads manuscript and reviews and says accept, reject, or revise and resubmit (R&R) and most published papers were R&R
    • Reliability of peer-review is terrible as well as evaluation for grants
    • Good thing about peer-review: after review, you added things you wouldn't do so it gets better through the process
  • Making peer review work for you: an anatomical map
    • Nose- do your detective work. Before you start, think of journals that will give you fair review. Look at editorial board because they usually review so pick on with people who know their stuff. You can pick reviewers- give higher kappa correlations.
      • How to select reviewers? In cover letter, select 2-4 reviewers making sure 1-2 on editorial board
      • "In our experience it’s hard to find people knowledgeable in x area, so we are happy to provide names of reviewers who are: Name (email)  "
      • Okay to request people you know that you haven’t published with to avoid conflict of interest
      • If experienced person is too busy, may request mentee like post-doc or advanced grad student
    • Limbic system- accept your emotions.
      • Don’t work on it immediately but wait 2-3 days  (peek and let it sit)
    • Frontal lobe
      • Itemize your decision letter- make it into a to-do list for each reviewer
      • Then cover letter- thanks for reviewing and each comment in quotes and response to it
    • Motor cortex-
      • One comment per day (maybe start with easy!) so it will take a month or so
      • “We thank reviewer 2 for saying ….”
      • “Positive opposites”
    • Arms-
      • Fix everything
      • What if you can’t fix it? Cover letter has to have a very good reason like citing literature or say it’s a limitation of the study because you don’t have the data and put it as a future direction
      • To the extent that it’s possible, put copied change in cover letter
      • Highlight changes in manuscript
    • Hands
      • If you need help, ask- of course, coauthors, but can ask others for advice like the editor but only them if necessary like “If I can’t do this, is it a deal breaker at this journal?”
      • Reviewer is pro bono so make it easy for them
        • Highlight revisions
        • Note page numbers in cover letter
    • Eyes-
      • In final stages of revisions, read your paper multiple times for typos/missing decimals etc.
      • Editors and reviewers will see typos and grammatical errors as indicative of sloppy work
    • Guts
      • Always say “We would be pleased to make any further revisions”- not a burden you’ll carry forever
      • End with “Thank you for the encouragement, support, and feedback that you and the reviewers have provided…”  
      • Accept review request from journals you publish in (also OK to email editors and say you are available to review and attach CV)
    • Wishbone-
      • What if two reviewers provide conflicting advice
      • “Reviewer X said A which was inconsistent with the Reviewer Y suggesting B so after much thought we decided to …”
    • Kidney
      • If you need more time, just ask
    • Donkey- Sometimes you get a mean reviewer- some have bad days
      • If it goes too far (“I didn’t even read it) might give heads up to editor but even if they ask if you want to be re-reviewed say no and just have them on your side
      • Frenemies? Reviewers leave fingerprints, sometimes comments give them away
      • Bad may say cite me more, disagree with your theory, they dislike your measures
      • In cover letter, OK to request not-reviewer and cite philosophical differences and put some blame on yourself. He says that I do not accept manuscripts that I suspect are theirs  
    • Broken heart
      • Rejected after R&R
      • Let it sit for a bit
      • Is it worth fighting for and asking editor for another chance? Easy for fight to affect your reputation
      • How to move on? Reread reviews and see if there was a dealbreaker comment you couldn’t address
      • Might shoot for a “lower tier” journal
    • Advice
      • What has he learned as an editor? All reviews are usable even if they’re given meanly
      • Can ask editors about special edition if you work in an area and have friends in it and you guest edit
      • Don’t thank the reviewer for every individual comment

Preparing a Training Grant[edit]

Dr. Deborah A.G. Drabick, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology at Temple University, and Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP). Her expertise is broadly in developmental psychopathology, and more specifically in youth externalizing problems. Her work includes such areas as risk and resilience, co-occurring psychological conditions, contextual influences, and intervention. Dr. Drabick has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, American Psychological Foundation, PA Department of Health, and Temple University.

Dr. Tara S. Peris, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, and Program Director of the UCLA ABC Partial Hospitalization Program at the UCLA Semel Institute. Her research focuses on developing strategies for optimizing treatment outcome for difficult-to-treat cases of anxiety, OCD, and related conditions. She is the recipient of a career development award from the National Institute of Mental Health, a NARSAD Young Investigator Award, and awards from the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation, the Trichotillomania Learning Center, and the Friends of the Semel Institute.

Description[edit]

Submitting a training grant involves considering multiple factors that focus on not only a proposed study but also a concrete plan for developing the skills needed to execute this study. By construction, these applications carry many expectations, requirements, and complicated forms. In this workshop, Drs. Deborah Drabick and Tara Peris leverage their years of experience with extramural funding to clarify the process of submitting a training grant, and provide attendees with concrete tools for submitting successful training grant applications.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Exploring F’s and K awards. Why apply for a training grant?

  • You want to show that your research wouldn’t be available without this grant. Show that this grant would provide you an opportunity that your grad school or other types of training wouldn’t provide.
  • It looks great on your CV. and for internships during graduate school. Even applying looks great.
  • Allows you time to advance your career.

Types of grants: F

  • First, two pieces are what goes out into the world. These pieces should be easy enough for someone who’s not in the field to read it and understand it.
  • Showing you had the setting and means. Show this is feasible and that you have institutional resources.
  • Everyone involved provides a biosketch. Biosketch should link TO YOUR PROJECT. Will this individual commit to this project? Will they be available? They must have demonstrated a commitment to the program and person applying. This should not only be in section A but in all the sections. Most reviewers are only looking at one part of your application.
  • Your application must be immensely readable. These reviewers live busy lives. Your application should be easy enough to read on a busy jostling bus. Make sure things flow and the graphics are easy to interpret.
  • You want the consultant letter to be incredibly clear and specific. Talk about meeting times (ex. “monthly or more often as needed”).
  • “Applicants background” is your time to tell your story.
  • This is showing what you have done and what you’d like to do.
  • Training goals: Should come across as, “I’m doing this, but if I just had your training I could do this.”
  • This entire section should be a narrative that helps people follow your process. They already have your CV. This is a way to narrate it and breathe life into it.
  • Explain how you got to the place you are now. However, don’t be negative. Be mindful of who is going to be reading this.
  • Ultimately, the reviewers are investing in you as a product long term. The projects you do are important but in the end, it’s you who is the most important.

Respective contributions:

  • Make sure somebody reads this before you send your application in.
  • This section shows that you have support and a team helping you if there are any problems. They want to know that you are a competent independent person but also have a support team of people backing you up.
  • This shows your idea was not developed in a vacuum.
  • Describe your environment so they can see if the grant would be a good fit and see your training so far is sufficient to do the training you want.
  • Be mindful of asking people less junior than the reviewers want as your sponsor. You want your mentor to have a mentor.
      • K grants: Format is very similar, but you’re asking for 4 or 5 years of funding.
  • Push the project as much as you can, this needs to last a long time.
  • Don’t just slap a bunch of high profile names on your application. Pick a specific person for each thing you need. You don’t get more points for a high profile person. You get points for compiling a good team.
  • Make sure you’re specific about what each person will help you with. You don’t want similar individuals or redundancy.
      • Remember the reviewers are not just trying to give you a hard time; they want to help.
  • Identify the people you need, specifically what they’re going to be helping you with and how often you’re meeting with all of them.

Your methods section is incredibly important.

  • Make sure you show that the project you are doing is important to the betterment of larger priorities in the field. Show that it’s good for YOU and THE FIELD.
  • Demonstrate the innovation. Show there’s a critical unmet need that you will help. However, make sure you can back it up.

Tips for writing the grant:

  • GIVE YOURSELF TIME.
  • All sections are important. Save time to do them all well.
  • Don’t ever use the phrase “No one has ever done this,” anywhere in your application. It doesn’t show that it should be done and you have to be very sure that it really hasn’t been done.
  • Link to clinical relevance is important. Explain how your research will change treatment. Your flashy methods won’t sell it, you have to show how it will help people.

Review process.

  • You will always get feedback even if you are not in the top 50% percent. (However, if you are not in the top 50% you will not receive the grant.

Applicant section:

  • This will encompass all training, awards, and honors throughout undergrad, post-bac, and grad training.
  • You should have a track record of training before, but you don’t want to be overqualified. There’s a sweet spot. If you have 300 publications they’re probably going to say you don’t need a K you should go ahead and apply for an R grant.

Sponsors:

  • What expertise are the members of the sponsor's team brings to the table? This shows that there is a working relationship where the applicant will be supported. They will look at the history of mentoring.
  • Make sure your aims are big enough to make a difference.

Methods

  • Are they sound? They will want to see pilot data to see that you’ve tried this before. They want to make sure that you have the time to do what you say. Even the tiniest iota of proof of concept data is vital. Make sure you’ve checked this process out before and make sure everything works. This gives everyone confidence that you can do this.

Go back and forth with your program officer in the beginning.

  • Send a draft of your aims and set up a time to talk about it.

Take the Paths Not Taken Approach

  • Anticipate what the reviewers might ask and answer the questions before they do.

Training potential

  • Explain how the training would extend past what you already have access to.
  • They need the stepwise progression of your plan. You need to show how what you plan on doing (taking a class, etc.) will apply and benefit you to do what you say.

Other things you can do:

  • Look at the study section roster. You have an idea of where this is going to go. See what they care about and their priorities. It wouldn’t hurt to cite them if it is relevant. If there’s someone you know will give you a hard time consider making them a consultant on your grant.

Job Options in Academia[edit]

Dr. Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.[edit]

Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Psychiatry, and the Acting Director of Center for Excellence in Research and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Past President (’16) and President-elect (’18) of Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Co-Founder of Helping Give Away Psychological Science, and Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Korea University. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Assessment, and the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. He also has extensive experience in disseminating knowledge about evidenced-based practices using the Wikipedia and Wikiversity platforms.

Dr. Matthew D. Lerner, Ph.D.[edit]

Assistant Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, & Pediatrics, and Director of Stony Brook Social Competence and Treatment Lab at Stony Brook University. His research focuses on understanding mechanisms of and developing interventions for social and emotional functioning (in particular peer relations) among children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and ADHD. He has received over $8 million in funding for his work from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, American Psychological Foundation, Simons Foundation, Alan Alda Fund for Communication, Arts Connection, and Pershing Charitable Trust.

Description[edit]

Graduate training in fields relevant to child and adolescent mental health (e.g., Education, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work) prepares trainees for careers in a variety of policy, research, and practice settings. How does a trainee learn about these opportunities and maximize their chances for landing jobs in one or more of these settings? Drs. Matthew Lerner and Eric Youngstrom will provide attendees with a broad overview of the job options available in academia, with a specific focus on strategies for crafting the training and scholarly records that make someone a compelling candidate for these job options.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Dr. Youngstrom's Presentation:[edit]

  • It takes time to get to do what you want to do and what you want to do is almost never your first job as a Post-Doc.
  • A Post-Doc got a K and now they can stay at the University since they have a grant
  • Research can give you more flexibility and autonomy and geography
  • Medical Center: Little teaching, you get paid to do no teaching, more money, not a limited amount of jobs, Medical Center is the soft money if you get your own grants or clinical service.
  • Your work is untethered from what you are paid to do. You are paid to teach
  • Private Practice: More Flexibility but more competition geography wise, Autonomy high, time is mostly afternoon weekends and later because of kids, autonomy and flexibility about traveling and taking time out are complicated.
  • If you step off the academic train this does not mean you can’t get back on.
  • You can get all these things but just not all at once but developmentally, it can be in phases
  • Private Practice can be done if you do Adjunct Teaching
  • You must think of what a priority is for you.
  • You can teach 2 days a week and do private practice once a week.
  • Adjunct Professor pay is horrid pay, good for the hobby, but easier location wise
  • Federal Program gives money to NIH so require money be spent on grants Small Business Innovation Research.
  • Blended Strategy
  • Cary NC the 3 C’s DeRosier for making treatment better
  • Think Tank: no time teaching, no clinical service needed, writing grants, soft money position mostly, pure research, Rand deals with Policy, RTI is innovative and integrated.
  • Understand therapy, research and human development better than general public so Train the Trainer by doing Quality Assurance, more supervision for Training Director like Jen Youngstrom, Work for insurance Board for Policy like Eric to consult them on what is EBT, EBA. Director of Child and Family Sources in Nevada for Government, she loves the lives she touches.
  • Therapist touches 30 people a week
  • No perfect job as your first job, one bite at a time, 4 priority bites of the source of $, flexibility, autonomy and geography.
  • Eric's mindmap was made using XMind and there is a free version.
  • Major categories of job options in academia include: Arts and Sciences (Tenure-Track, Teaching Oriented, Research Staff), Medical Center (Research Staff, Clinician, Principal Investigator), Policy (Quality Assurance, Department of Child and Family Services, Insurance Board), Think Tanks (PTI, Rand), and Private Practice (Adjunct Teaching, Small Business Innovation Research, Schools).
  • Key issues to consider when considering these job options: Source of Money, Flexibility, Autonomy, Geography.

Dr. Lerner's Presentation:[edit]

  • Stay in Academia:
  • Different options: Arts and Sciences: R1 is Ph. D. at an institute where you teach but paid mostly for research and to train grad students is what the university is called and developed by Carnegie. You can pay out with a grant for someone to teach your course
  • 50-50 is 2-2 research opportunities vary
  • Teaching-focused: 3-3 4-4,
  • Government Jobs straight out of postdoc or as a postdoc, research jobs and is intramural funding.
  • Some teaching may require you to be on committees. External service as Professional Development counts as service, leadership roles in SCCAP, reviewing papers and grants as external, external service for editing Wikipedia to represent Psychology accurately.
  • As long as you can explain how your step off the train applies to where you want to go and what skills you acquired then you are okay.
  • Keep a foot in the game after leaving Academia by continuing to Write.
  • Crossing a river by hopping from rock to rock some are shorter than others and some might be big leaps and take smaller hops, there will always be trades. You are allowed to change your mind
  • You can slow down and then make up time
  • IF you are trying to sell yourself to a think tank then publications help or go to the website and look at their portfolio and then learn from them on how they got there by interviewing them. Not asking for a job but asking how they got there. Use networking
  • The number of people applying to jobs isn’t the hard part but you have to make your case strong even if the quantitative challenge is not there.

Preparing Your First Grant as a Principal Investigator (Block III)[edit]

Dr. Joshua M. Langberg, Ph.D.[edit]

Associate Professor of Psychology, and Director of Promoting Adolescent School Success (P.A.S.S.) research group at Virginia Commonwealth University, and Associate Editor for the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (JACP). His research focuses on improving the behavioral and academic functioning of children, adolescents, and emerging adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and on disseminating evidence-based interventions for youth with ADHD into community settings. He has received over $12 million in funding from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and Virginia Foundation for Healthy Youth.

Description[edit]

Submitting your first grant as a Principal Investigator (PI) can appear on the surface to be a daunting task, with many expectations, requirements, and complicated forms. In this workshop, Dr. Joshua Langberg will leverage his years of experience with extramural funding to demystify the grant submission process, and provide attendees with concrete tools for submitting successful grant applications.

Workshop Materials[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes

Overview Picking a topic Preliminary data Forming team Budget Telling your story Picking a topic People struggle with having too many interests Grants need to be focused People need to budget time and not write many grants from scratch; work on adapting People should have perhaps “two lines of research” rather than way too many Consider the state and depth of the field you are getting into and consider the big trends a little You don’t need to conform to them, but just be aware of where the field is going Trends: Really complex statistics Power analyses, MLM, Longitudinal SEM, EMA If you have weaknesses, at least should have someone on your team who can compensate Consider your interests as “two buckets” and your publications typically fall under those two buckets What you write a grant, you have to consider what you have experience with and if what you are proposing aligns with that (ex. If you have already done a study with 30-40 kids in community mental health, it would look promising/feasible if you propose to do that again) Look at NIH biosketch Captures the two buckets Might be important to have two publications in each bucket that are first authors Preliminary Data/Track Record Be careful with the measures you pick (the easiest measures to pick do not always offer the most fruitful and interesting results); be innovative Picking a team to fill your gaps Need to understand and know your story before you pick a team Consider: Studying and new constructs that are pretty central to the proposal? Using any new assessment/measurement techniques? Do you need a senior person? (Feasibility/ recruitment) Want to take the “is this too ambitious” question out of reviewers minds Are you going to be working in a new setting Do you have sufficient statistical expertise What will my team do? Important to consider what your teammates are like when picking a team and how reliable they are habitually Might need to reach out to people who are experts but you don’t already have a relationship with them Nice to do it first in person Perhaps in symposium Budget Personnel is always a fairly large cost Consultants could also occur Co-I or Co-PI will accrue much more money Need to realize that people who are seniors in the field added to the grant to make the grant whole will have to be paid a lot Telling your story “Because no one has looked at it” is not an acceptable rationale for a grant Need a "why" to bolster it Try not to write “no one has looked at…” Again you need something more evidence-based to bolster this statement Nice to write how this new knowledge will change practice and have implications for other disorders Who will give you money NIMH NICHD SAMHSA IES National Science Foundations PCORI William T. Grant MacArthur Network NARSAD Internal grants Knowing agencies priorities will help you tailor the grant a little Reaching out to Program Officers They prioritize an aims page that you should send when you request help Goal 1: Exploration 2 development and innovation 3 efficacy 4 effectiveness 5 implementation Example proposals Don’t be scared to ask for examples! Ask colleagues and program officers for review and helps Each university typically has different timelines Establish your timeline List two main programs of research How many publications currently fall under each List key publications you want under each before a grant Describe pilot data you want to collect to super the grant and your track record Pilot data doesn’t need to be published with the caveat that you should probably have other publications Posters work Could just be analyses apart from poster and pub too Propose the first grant for one of the areas What type of team will you need and what training Put all this information on a timeline or propose dates

Ceremony for the Future Directions Launch Award (2:45 pm-3:45 pm)[edit]

Maggi Price[edit]

About the award winner[edit]
Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • 1800 children have been separated at the border, half youth under age of 12, immigration arrests at higher risk of hunger, poverty, and mental health, over half youth of color experience bullying and ⅓ experience bullying due to a stigma against and an identity like gender
  • Stigmatized identities like LGBTQ youth victimization and marginalized identities
  • Deportation threats like PTSD
  • Structural stigma
  • A larger gap between culturally adapted EBP and large-scale dissemination
  • Thus we need tools that are easy to implement and can be applied across multiple situations
  • Most targeted and stigmatized youth needed the most support

Emily M. Becker-Haimes Ph.D.[edit]

About the award winner[edit]

Emily Becker-Haimes, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker-Haimes received her B.A. from Johns Hopkins University and her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Miami, where she specialized in child and adolescent clinical psychology. She completed an APA-accredited predoctoral internship at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Her dissertation, which examined how the extent of parent and youth disagreement on youth symptoms can predict and monitor treatment outcome, was funded by an F31 from the NIMH and the University of Miami College of Arts & Sciences Dean’s Summer Fellowship. Her research to date has focused on improving treatments for youth with anxiety disorders and studying how to optimally support therapist delivery of evidence-based treatments within the context of routine clinical care. Dr. Becker-Haimes is currently the project director for an NIMH-funded R01 (PI: Rinad Beidas) that aims to identify the most accurate and cost-effective methods for measuring therapist fidelity to cognitive-behavioral therapy in the public mental health system. Her current work is focused on designing and evaluating tailored implementation strategies to support the clinician use of exposure therapy for youth anxiety and in developing novel implementation strategies to best prepare clinicians to be competent and flexible evidence-based practitioners.

Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Clinical background in Anxiety Therapy, Jenna had panic disorder and no, the significant gap between research practice gap in anxiety disorder, pronounced gap, less likely to receive CBT exposure therapy, hard to do exposure even though so robust
  • Exposure uptake lack behind EBP
  • Implementation science: The study of methods to promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine clinical practice
  • Developing toolkits for clinicians to deliver exposure therapy for anxiety called READY
  • www.bravepracticeforkids.com
  • Beyond Exposure Therapy: To see what makes it so hard in public mental health system.
  • Learning and Observing Community Partners
  • Masters degree programs aren't adequately providing EBP exposure training

Spencer C. Evans[edit]

About the award winner[edit]

Spencer Evans earned his Ph.D. in Clinical Child Psychology, minoring in Quantitative Methods, from the University of Kansas in 2017. After completing an APA-accredited internship at the Medical University of South Carolina (Child Track), he began a Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. A member of John Weisz’s Youth Mental Health Lab, Spencer works on the development, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence-based assessment and treatment methods, especially transdiagnostic, personalized, and measurement-based approaches. Broadly, Spencer’s research seeks to advance the understanding and treatment of emotional and behavioral dysregulation in youth, with three interrelated areas of interest: (a) examining developmental correlates and outcomes of disruptive behavior, mood disturbance, and irritability; (b) leveraging assessment techniques to improve diagnosis and treatment in youth mental health care; and (c) general scientific and methodological issues in clinical psychology. Part of his research has involved working with the World Health Organization in their development and evaluation of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Mental and Behavioural Disorders, particularly Disruptive Behaviour and Dissocial Disorders. Clinically, Spencer has worked as a therapist, examiner, consultant, and trainer, emphasizing evidence-based services for common emotional and behavioral problems affecting youth and families.

Notes[edit]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Therapy is hard, selecting a treatment is hard and how to continue this treatment
  • The Gap between what you are doing and what you know is possible.
  • Assessment is so important
  • Severe irritability: predicts a lot of problems.
  • How do we assess for irritability
  • GAP: The same methods that created this gap will not be the methods to close this gap so what unique steps do we need to take to close the gap.
  • What do we do with this data?