JCCAP FDF/2021/Day 1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Information below is a placeholder for the 2021 meeting.

Most of the information below is up to date, however, some sections are missing completed notes and awardees.

YouTube Videos with recordings from the 2021 virtual conference can be found here.

Day 1: Workshops[edit | edit source]

Workshop #1 (1:00pm - 2:30pm EST): The Revise and Resubmit Process when Publishing in Peer-Reviewed Journals[edit | edit source]

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

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Maryland at College Park. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. He recently released his book, The Early Career Researcher's Toolbox: Insights into Mentors, Peer Review, and Landing a Faculty Job. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Founding Program Chair of JCCAP's Future Directions Forum.

Description[edit | edit source]

Think about some of the greatest, most thought-provoking journal articles you ever read. Chances are that each of them went through extensive revisions not only during the drafting process, but also throughout the review process, on the path to the journal editor eventually accepting it for publication. You probably know that successful researchers have to accept, cope with, and overcome rejection on the path to publishing their work. The same can be said for those perennial circumstances, when editors and/or peer reviewers tell an author, “I think you are on the right track, but your paper still needs some work.” That’s the revise and resubmit process in a nutshell, and this workshop focuses on delivering concrete strategies for navigating this process.

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

Part 1:

  • Mentors are part of a large organization that assists with your research.
  • Reviewers evaluate the mentor and your work.
  • Peer review system utilizes academic outlets (i.e., academic journals) and experts in the field as a quality control system in which research is reviewed.
    • Submit work to an organization for fair evaluations and understanding how to navigate unfair elements is crucial.


Part 2:

  • There are seven components to a peer review.
    • Author(s) choose(s) journal outlet for submission
    • Author(s) prepare(s) manuscript for submission format
    • Author(s) submit(s) the manuscript and cover letter
    • Editor-in-Chief selects “Action Editor”
    • Action Editor selects reviewers, who subsequently submit evaluations of the manuscript
    • Action Editor reads manuscript/reviews, makes decision
    • If the decision is to “revise and resubmit.” author revises manuscript in line with reviewer commentary and sends back for further consideration
  • Editor and Reviewer Selections
    • Editorial board
      • Editor-in-Chief
      • Associate Editor(s)
      • Editorial Consultants
    • Editor-in-Chief selects “Action Editor”
    • Action Editor selects reviewers
  • Review timeline may take 2-3 months for psychology journals but dependent on research and field.
    • Pandemic has made finding reviewers difficult.
  • 3 types of decisions
    • Accept
    • Reject
    • Revise and Resubmit (R&R)
      • Most common decision
  • Reliability is low based on studies.
    • Reliability of the peer-review process is worse than the least reliable method in scientific research.
      • Reliability is the correlation between two independent evaluators’ ratings of the same submission.
    • Cicchetti (1991).
  • Revise and Resubmit
    • Tend to have the same committee or reviewer as the first time presenting.
    • Final product tends to exceed the original quality of the manuscript.


Part 3:

  • Understand the editorial board beforehand.
    • Recognize to see if the board will be able to provide a fair assessment when picking journals to submit.
  • Select your own reviewers within the submission portals (Not required but ideal).
    • In the cover letter, select 2-4 reviewers.
  • Template provided*
    • Make sure 1-2 reviewers are on the Editorial Board.
  • At the time of receiving an official answer, emotions are unpredictable.
    • Do not make an immediate decision when receiving a decision letter.
    • Take time (2-3 days) to process and think of forthcoming steps.
  • Do not immediately revise manuscript after the revise and resubmit decision.
    • Number or list each of the reviewer’s comments, which will allow for an efficient plan of revision in the future.
    • Consider a plan to revise each comment (e.g., revising one comment a day).
  • Despite negative or harsh comments, respond with a positive comment or thankfulness for comments because it demonstrates character to the editorial board and positive outlook for future revisions (i.e., may give you the benefit of the doubt).
  • Provide a substantial reason as to why you do not make a revision.
    • Always try to make revisions even if it is minimal.
  • If an extensive critique is made, direct the reviewer to the comment to avoid stating word from word.
  • Within your social network, reach out to other researchers to offer advice on your work (i.e., does not have to be a co-author).
    • Reach out to the editor if there is a comment you cannot address (with a rationale), in which they will assess if the manuscript is worth future acceptance.
  • Ensure in the final stage of revision, there is extreme precaution in minimal errors, such as grammatical errors and punctuation mistakes.
    • Puts a negative “taste” in the reviewers mind, leading to unfavorable assumptions if unpolished.


Part 4:

  • After paper acceptance, accept peer review positions in the future that are within your expertise or without a conflict of interest.
    • Peer review utilizes an extensive period of time, which is why it is courteous to return the favor.
    • Additionally, it demonstrates a good “academic citizen.”
  • Conflicting comments amongst reviewers
    • “Reviewer X suggests A. This was inconsistent with Reviewer Y who suggested B. After careful consideration, I decided to [Personal preference].
  • Email editor for time extension to ensure quality revision (they usually state yes unless rare occasions).
  • Rude or aggravating reviewers are common, but understandable due to special circumstances everyone encounters.
    • If OVERLY aggressive, reach out to the editor respectfully.
  • Most reviewers are anonymous, but after numerous peer review processes, negative reviewers can become identifiable in their writing styles or comments.
    • Within your cover letter, request the editor to not include a reviewer to assess manuscript (Template provided).
    • Reflect on your submission and take responsibility as needed.
  • After you revise your manuscript and it becomes rejected, most of the time, you should move on. Specifically, reflect on their decision and your work.
    • Review any “deal-breaker “comments that you could not successfully address (if there are comments, then consider applying for lower tier journals).


Q&A:

  • When trying to publish a paper, review the journal’s papers to grasp an understanding of the typical structure/layout, and if your submission is in the general field of the journal.
  • Regardless of change, direct the reviewer to the comment you are changing (small changes- copy and paste; Large changes - summarize).
  • Feedback on submitting to top tier journals to receive substantial feedback compared to low tier journals.
    • It can be helpful at first but not ideal and dependent on the quality of manuscript, editorial board, and more.
    • Personal preference from presenter (Andy): Apply to journals that fit your manuscript (i.e., if it belongs or relates to low tier, apply for a low tier journal).
  • Advice on being a good peer reviewer:
    • Editor usually wants to see a version of the paper to be published despite personal preferences.
    • Suggest critiques that will push the paper forward.



Workshop #2 (1:00pm - 2:30pm EST): Seeking Out Career Paths in Philanthropy and Consulting[edit | edit source]

Dr. Saajan Bhakta, Ph.D. & Dr. Amelia Aldao, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Saajan Bhakta grew up in Kansas. He earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology and master’s degree in criminal justice from Wichita State University. Saajan earned his PhD in International Psychology from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. He is passionate about applied learning and the application of psychology to complex global problems. Saajan has traveled to, worked in, and studied in over 25 different countries.

Dr. Amelia Aldao is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and Founder of Together CBT. She specializes in anxiety, OCD, stress, sleep, depression, relationships, and mindfulness. She is a Visiting Scholar at Columbia University and a member of the Psychiatry Faculty at Mount Sinai Hospital, where she teaches CBT to PhD students in Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry Residents, respectively. She is currently writing a book on CBT techniques for managing anxiety.

Description[edit | edit source]

Many of us are curious about whether career path options exist other than the usual paths discussed within our own programs (e.g., policy, practice, research, teaching), and how viable pursuing these paths might be. Wouldn’t it be great if you had access to a workshop with strategies on how to “break into” areas of work that involve intersecting with philanthropic organizations and consulting firms? For those of you who answered “yes” to this question, we have a workshop for that at Forum 2021, led by two experts in the philanthropic and consultation spaces! Following the workshop, we will have options for small-group consultations with workshop leaders so that you have opportunities to get answers to questions that are specific to your goals, interests, and needs.

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



Workshop #3 (2:30pm - 4:00pm EST): Addressing Pipeline Issues in the Mental Health Workforce[edit | edit source]

Dr. Riana Anderson, Ph.D. & Dr. Melanie Wilcox, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Riana Elyse Anderson, PhD, LCP is an Assistant Professor in the Health Behavior and Health Education Department in the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan. Her scholarship addresses culturally specific parenting practices to reduce race-related stress in families. She earned her doctorate in Clinical and Community Psychology at the University of Virginia and was a Clinical and Community Psychology Predoctoral Fellow at Yale University’s School of Medicine. She was a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of Health Leader at the University of Pennsylvania.

Melanie M. Wilcox, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences and Institute of Public and Preventive Health at Augusta University. She earned her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology at the University at Albany in 2015, her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, PA in 2009, and her Associate of Science in Psychology at Lehigh Carbon Community College in 2007. Her research focuses on culturally responsive psychotherapy and psychotherapist training; racial and economic inequity in higher education; and factors associated with racist attitudes for White people. In 2020, she served as the Chair of the American Psychological Association's Board of Educational Affairs.

Description[edit | edit source]

One of the most intransigent issues facing work in mental health involves key barriers to building a research, policy, and practice workforce that is as diverse as the population surrounding that workforce. These barriers often take the form of “leaks” in the pipeline from formative training stages (e.g., high school, undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral training) all the way to later professional career stages (e.g., post-doctoral, early- and mid-career positions). What strategies are available to address these “pipeline leaks,” and how can we get involved in this important work? This workshop will address your burning questions regarding how you can get involved in addressing pipeline leaks in the mental health workforce.

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • The Workforce Pipeline is the pathway of a profession or workplace, from the start of early education (i.e., pre-school) through higher education (i.e., postgraduate credentials).
  • A Leaky Pipeline is the concept of marginalized groups (e.g., BIPOC individuals) undergoing escalated rates of attrition, leading in minimal representation within the selected profession or workforce.
  • Insufficient opportunities, preparation, or resources may lead to leaky pipelines.
  • Numerous factors contribute to leaky pipelines, with various circumstances stemming from Garriott’s Critical-Cultural Wealth Model.
    • Structural and Institutional Circumstances
      • Economics
      • Racism, Classism, Sexism
    • Social-Emotional Experiences
      • Campus, school, and program belongingness
      • Normative Capital (i.e., Hidden Curriculum)
      • Conflict between campus, family, social environment, community cultures and expectations
    • Cultural Wealth
      • Critical consciousness
      • Family and community wealth/capital
  • Race, class, and SES correlated with GRE scores.
  • Institutional and systemic racism hinders the outcome of BIPOC individuals, especially in early life settings.
  • Racism is prevalent in early education.
    • Example - Black children are 3-4 more likely to be expelled than white students affecting their educational experience and future outcomes
  • Racism in Higher Education leads to a variety of consequences.
    • Poor assessment and evaluations for the leak
    • Minimal BIPOC individuals continuing education and minimal representation
    • Imposter syndrome
    • Internalization of negative thoughts and feelings
  • As mentioned above, economic-related conditions significantly affect the lives of individuals.
    • High attrition rates
    • Greater student loan debts, overworking (e.g., multiple jobs), skipping meals, etc.
    • BIPOC and low SES students borrow more in student loans and are offered greater predatory private loans.
  • Immense student loan debt correlated with frequent absences of life milestones amongst BIPOC and low SES students.
    • Additionally, poorer health quality is also an outcome.
    • Intersectionality drastically worsens the conditions of students.
  • BIPOC and low SES individuals are more likely to experience food insecurity and home insecurity while pursuing higher education (e.g., undergraduate and graduate).
  • Approximately 50% of students encounter food insecurity and 1/10 college students are homeless.
    • Food insecurity is linked to lower GPA, greater stress, and other consequences.
  • Generational wealth continues to decrease amongst millennials and generation Z despite achieving higher education.
  • Over 80% of the psychology workforce consists of white individuals.
  • Furthermore, 80% of doctoral students and postgraduates in the psychology field identify themselves as upper-middle class (41%) or upper class (39%).
  • The leaky pipeline continues post graduation concerning the work environment.
    • BIPOC and lower-SES students are at a higher rate of staying in unhappy jobs, burnout more frequently, and stress about high student loan debt.
    • BIPOC and lower-SES students are less likely to work in public service, such as teaching and research positions.
  • Due to the leaky pipeline, minimal representation, and other factors, BIPOC and low SES individuals often choose not to pursue psychology at all.



Workshop #4 (2:30pm - 4:00pm EST): Networking in the Context of Social Distancing[edit | edit source]

Dr. Lucina Uddin, Ph.D. & Dr. Jessica Schleider, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Description[edit | edit source]

Are you tired of zoom? Don’t you wish you had a chance to connect with people again, maybe even in tightly packed, intimate quarters like―gasp!―social hours at conferences? Well, we may still have to wait a while for that, but your career pursuits probably can’t wait for that in-person networking engine to rev up again. We heard the voices of our Forum 2020 attendees, and they were clamoring for advice on how to network when it’s just you and your mobile devices. A couple of social media superstars in mental health and neuroscience research are here to help with strategies on how to network when social distancing is the norm.  

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

What does networking do?

  • Helps you understand what career path is right for you
  • Better prepares you for job searching
  • Helps build collaboration in other fields/areas you may be interested in
  • Allows you to connect with people you would not usually be able to connect with
  • Allows you to build your social network with authentic relationships
  • Where does networking occur?
  • Due to the pandemic, usually on email, zoom, Slack, or social media
  • Before the pandemic, usually during conferences, seminars, talks, lab meetings
  • If applying to graduate school, it may be helpful to have a website; having evidence of what you are like as an academic can help bring connections
  • Network with your peers, not just those ahead of you; you may end up working with them in the future
  • Using Twitter to network is challenging; it fosters the worst kinds of communication styles
  • Twitter may be effective for self-promotion and figuring out the personality/culture of a lab/mentor

Post-Doc Networking

  • Let mentors know you want to work with them
  • Update them on what you publish


Day 1: Address[edit | edit source]

Future Directions Address (4:00pm - 6:00pm EST): Future Directions in Treatment for Anxiety[edit | edit source]

Dr. Wendy K. Silverman, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Description[edit | edit source]

Dr. Wendy Silverman discusses the future directions in treatment for anxiety

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • The Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) recognizes Anxiety Disorders as a prevalent matter.
  • Several types of Anxiety Disorders:
    • Specific Phobia
    • Selective Mutism
    • Separation Anxiety Disorder
    • Social Anxiety Disorder
    • Generalized Anxiety Disorder
    • Panic Disorder
    • Agoraphobia
  • Observations for Anxiety Disorders are diverse, such behavior and biological (neural) targets.
  • Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) compared to waitlist control found 59% remission rate versus 15%.
    • Cochrane review (2018).
  • CBT predictors of poor outcome
    • Main effect predictors of poor outcomes include severe anxiety, such social anxiety disorder, along with low socioeconomic status (SES) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
    • Main effect predictors of poor long-term follow ups (4-12 years) include severe anxiety, specifically adolescents with a social anxiety disorder.
  • CBT: Mind My Mind (MMM)
    • 9-13 weekly sessions; booster sessions after week 4.
    • 50 CBT modules targeting anxiety, depression, or behavioral problems.
    • Flexible adaptations to each child’s individual co-occurring problems.
    • Parents were engaged as co-agents of change.
  • Program for Anxiety in MMM
    • Psychoeducation
    • Cognitive reconstructing
    • Exposure
    • Experiments
    • Problem Solving
  • Protection trap is a negative reinforcement system that only provides short-term relief for the child and parent.
    • In response to a child's distress in a situation, the parent provides immediate reinforcement, which provides temporary relief.
    • The child continues to be distressed in future situations, with their anxiety increasing.
  • Parents and treatment: Transfer of Control
    • Cognitive therapy between child and therapist (self-control).
    • Parent reinforcement training, in which the therapist interacts with the parent who then communicates with the child (Contingency management).
    • CBT between child and therapist, and also the therapist communicating with the parent who discusses with their child (Full transfer of control).
  • CBT for anxious children is effective with or without active parental involvement.
    • However, it is still unknown which specific parenting mechanisms can be used to enhance CBT treatment.
      • Acceptance
      • Communication Training
      • Expressed Emotion
      • Psychological Control
      • Monitoring
      • Anxious Modeling
      • Reduction of Negative Reinforcement
      • Problem Solving and more
  • Contingency management and transfer of control is evident especially for durability.
  • There is no supportive evidence of enhanced effects of parental mechanisms on CBT treatment.
    • CBT with parents did not produce a significant advantage over individual CBT.
  • Randomized controlled trial (RCT)
    • CBT + Parents: Children and parents together in the same session at the same time.
    • GCBT (No parents at all)
  • Clinical Results and Discoveries from RCT
    • Anxiety significantly reduced in CBT and CBT + Parents, but no significant difference between the two groups.
    • Anxiety significantly reduced in GCBT and in CBT + Parents, but no significant differences between the two.
    • Changes in parent control were associated with changes in pediatric anxiety.
    • Parent psychological control is a possible indicator in CBT + Parents.
  • Parents rated negative reinforcement and psychological control as significant mechanisms in improving CBT + Parent sessions compared with CBT.
  • Additional Clinical Discoveries
    • CBT + Parents significantly reduced pediatric anxiety more than CBT during a 12-month follow-up.
    • Reducing parent psychological control associated with youth anxiety reduction.
    • Reducing parent’s use of negative reinforcement associated with youth anxiety reduction (consistent with protection trap and Contingency Management).
    • Clinical Implication:
      • Reduce parent psychological control and negative reinforcement to enhance CBT outcomes.
  • Future Steps
    • Produce stronger and greater durable effects with concrete, specific, intense, digital intervention to reduce parent use of psychological control and negative reinforcement.
      • Proof of consent (e.g., feasibility, acceptability, satisfaction)
      • Preliminary effects
      • Augment design
  • Attention retraining as a possible augment
    • Anxious individuals display rapid bias in deploying attention to threat.
    • Train the brain to look away from threat to reduce attention bias
  • Attention Retaining
    • Probes appear in the location of neutral faces on 100% of trials.
    • Attention control (i.e., control condition): Probe appears in the location of neutral faces randomly.
    • 8 sessions over 4 weeks, 20 minute sessions.
  • Augmenting CBT with Attention Retraining in CBT-resistance children
    • 50% of the total sample recovered at post, with 58% at the follow-up.
    • Within groups, mean anxiety scores significantly lower at post than pre, with medium to large effect sizes.
      • Same result at follow-up.
    • No significant differences between groups including in Attention Bias (behavior) and Attention Control scores (self-report).
  • Augment Results and Discoveries
    • Attention retraining is efficient and cost effective in stepped care approach (Attention retaining 1st, CBT augment 2nd).
    • Attention retraining is a viable augment for CBT-resistant pediatric anxiety.
    • Children in both attention retraining and attention control comparator demonstrate significant anxiety reductions through follow-up.
  • Wrap-up
    • Anxiety assessment methods are in good to excellent conditions.
    • Samples are inadequately diverse.
    • CBT has efficient and effective elements but still needs improvement.
    • CBT outcome enhancement viable in reducing parent psychological control and negative reinforcement.
    • CBT outcome enhancement viable via Attention retraining (stepped care, CBT-resistant children).
    • Attention retraining mechanisms and efficacy are under current investigation.
  • Current and Future Directions
    • Moderatos (which treatments for whom)
    • Rates of change (rapid responders, delayed responders, etc.)
    • Group CBT findings
    • Attention retaining with subclinical anxiety
    • Behavioral and biological/neural targets