JCCAP FDF/2020

Addresses

Future Directions Address 1: Father Inclusion, Engagement, Retention, and Positive Outcomes in Child and Adolescent Research

Presented by Greg Fabiano, Ph.D.

Description

In this address, Dr. Greg Fabiano outlines future directions in the next generation of father-focused studies in the child and adolescent psychology literature, with an emphasis on improving the study of the parameters of inclusion, engagement, retention, and measurement of outcomes. Research shows that parents may play a key role in child resilience. It is important to focus on fathers in research because father involvement lags behind mother involvement and father involvement in childhood has been a long-standing national priority. Research has found father involvement to contribute to language development and early literacy skills as well as the development of appropriate socialization skills. However, few studies have looked at father involvement in child treatment. The format most research studies are in, may actually discourage fathers to participate. The COACHES program works to address this gap in research by focusing on father involvement in the intervention. Results show that fathers are satisfied with the outcomes of the program (100%) and satisfied with the treatment process (80%). This research shows initial promise for interventions that include fathers.

Watch the YouTube video recording of the address enter link here

Future Directions Address 2: Research and Intervention with Youths in Poverty

Presented by Martha Wadsworth, Ph.D.

Description

In this address, Dr. Martha Wadsworth integrates theory and empirical findings about understanding and fostering the process of resilience and adaptation in children and families who live in poverty. She starts off by defining what "normal" is and how it is culturally defined. The stress response system gathers information from the environment which it then uses to guide the development of the individual in a way that matches the environment. There are many ways in which our bodies develop and respond to the environment. Because development is extremely dependent on environment, children that grow up in dangerous and unpredictable environments, develop in a way suited to handle those environments and usually do not develop behaviors that are well suited to a more enriched environment. We develop abilities that match our environment rather than abilities that may be useful in other environments. Dr. Wadsworth proposes that focusing on skills that are strengths may be more beneficial than focusing on deficits. Cultural identity should also play a large role in interventions and can be used as a "coping resource" for youth in poverty. By building a strong identity, children can gain coping skills. Interventions for youth in poverty should begin by focusing on stress and coping. Next, the intervention can focus on cultural identity and finish with collective empowerment. Overall, a multifaceted approach is necessary to treatment youth in poverty.

Watch the YouTube video recording of the address enter link here

Future Directions Address 3: Examination of Brain Networks in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Presented by Lucina Uddin, Ph.D.

Description

In this address, Dr. Lucina Uddin discusses future directions for neuroscience researchers examining brain networks in neurodevelopmental disorders, highlighting gaps in the current literature. Cognitive flexibility is important in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research has shown atypical patterns of brain dynamics often seen in those with neurodevelopmental disorders which is characterized by cognitive inflexibility. Dr. Uddin and her lab have conducted several studies looking at brain networks in those with neurodevelopmental disorders. They concluded that ASD and ADHD must be considered in the context of phenotypic heterogeneity. There are also associated difficulties in parsing heterogeneity in neurodevelopmental disorders. She suggests that researchers use a novel data-driven approach to inform diagnostic nosology. There are new studies looking at whether bilingualism can help with executive functioning in individuals with ASD.

Watch the YouTube video recording of the address enter link here

Future Directions Address 4: the Treatment of Youth Mental Health

Presented by Bruce Chorpita, Ph.D.

Description

In this address, Dr. Bruce Chorpita discusses mental health care systems and presents ideas and examples of methods that may preserve the strengths of the two major paradigms in children’s mental health, evidence-based treatments, and individualized care models, but that also have the potential to extend their applicability and impact. While over 20% of the world experiences mental health concerns at some point, most don't receive services and those who do are typically not receiving evidence-based services. There is also an insufficient workforce to meet society's needs. The future of research needs to make sure that the evidence-base treatments match diverse populations, are continuing in development, and are dynamic. We need to "chunk and filter" treatments per individual who is receiving them. When modular design, feedback, and expert process managing were combined for treatment of youth, they performed better than evidence-based treatments and usual care. The MATCH program performed well in multiple research clinical trials. In the future, treatment engagement, handling a patient with a crisis, and ethnic and cultural diversity need to be addressed in treatments. Chunking, filtering, and discovering are the best ways to empower individuals to act on best ideas first and self correct.

Watch the YouTube video recording of the address enter link here.

Workshops

Selecting Mentors when Applying to Doctoral Programs

Presented by Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.

Description

Applying to doctoral programs marks an important life milestone for you and other undergraduate majors and post-baccalaureate trainees. Importantly, some of the considerations for choosing where to receive undergraduate training (e.g., faculty-to-student ratio, quality of institution) take a "back seat" to the key factor in doctoral training that most impacts your career: Identifying the person who will serve as your mentor. Undergraduate programs rarely offer formal instruction in choosing doctoral mentors, and some of the factors you might consider could vary from year-to-year and by mentor. Overall, when selecting a mentor you should consider who fits your needs and learning style. Because the quality of your doctoral training is mostly impacted by your mentor, you should think about who is going to fit best with your goals. When searching for mentors to apply to, you should first identify researchers who study topics similar to your interests. You can do this by reading research articles and looking for ones that align with your "burning question". Other factors you should consider when selecting mentors include: the size of their lab, the time they devote to their mentees, the area in which their research encompasses, and the resources they have available. To determine what to look for in these factors, it is important to know your values and learning style.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

Responding to Peer Review Commentary

Presented by Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.

Description

Publishing articles involves submitting scholarly manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. A key component of publishing manuscripts involves receiving commentary about your work from peers in your field, and satisfactorily responding to such commentary. Yet, researchers rarely receive formal training on responding to peer review commentary. The first thing to know when submitting an article for peer review is that it can take several months to get feedback and the feedback among reviewers hardly converges. However, the good news is, typically if you receive a revise and resubmit, revise accordingly and resubmit the paper, the finished product will likely be of higher quality than when you first submitted for publication. When submitting a paper for publication, you should consider which journal you believe will give you a fair review and you should submit 2-4 reviewers in your cover letter that you think have the expertise to review your work. Once you get your decision from peer-review, you should wait a few days before working on revisions and/or responding. Next you should itemize the decision letter creating a to-do list of the revisions (this will become a template for the cover letter you send in response). If there are suggested revisions you cannot do, you need a solid reason as to why you are unable to and you should cite this if possible. If you need help, it is okay to reach out to the editor and/or colleagues for support and advice. If reviewers give conflicting advice, you should give a reason as to why you went with one reviewer's suggestion over the others. Lastly, you can sometimes get a reviewer who is particularly mean, in that case you should let the editor know about the review and if you consistently have a hard time with a reviewer, you can let the editor know in your cover letter that you wish for the person to not review your paper.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

Strategies for Developing a Research Program

Presented by Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.

Description

Research isn’t all elegant study designs, accurate data collection, and sophisticated equations. Researchers must also communicate their ideas and findings with scholarly audiences, and do so effectively. These audiences are no different from those found at your local theater: They understand each paper you write or talk you deliver insofar as it tells a compelling story. Yet, your storytelling doesn’t stop with a single paper or talk. Scholarly records span years and multiple pieces of work. Successful researchers learn to synthesize their records to tell a larger story: a research program. Finding your "burning question" will help when developing a research program. This can then be used to build the theoretical framework to which you begin to answer your "burning question". The goal of developing a research program should be similar to that of making a film, you want to elicit positive emotion in your audience and make them think. The first three papers you write in your lab should have a role in building your research program and connect back to your "burning question". Each paper should propel your next paper in this "trilogy" and the third paper should bring you back to the beginning one. Tailored to the lives of early career researchers, these tools reveal keen insights into nailing the job talk that launches your career.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

New Models of Collaboration and Dissemination

Presented by Eric Youngstrom, Ph.D.

Description

Wikipedia and Wikiversity offer powerful tools for disseminating knowledge to diverse audiences, including scientists and other key stakeholders (e.g., parents and policy makers). These tools greatly increase in utility if scientists receive training on how to leverage these tools for disseminating knowledge. In this workshop, Dr. Eric Youngstrom provides attendees with the know-how for using Wikipedia and Wikiversity, with a focus on how these tools help advance the mission of the open science movement. He begins by outlining copyright for open source information including a description of creative commons (CC) licensing that Wiki platforms use. There are several ways to use a CC license one of which is more high tech and involves registering your work on the CC website and the other which involves you placing CC BY 4.0 NAME on your work. Next Dr. Youngstrom describes how to use OSF to promote open access science. Housing materials on OSF allows others to easily access the work you are doing without having to go through paywalls. Lastly, Dr. Youngstrom describes the non-profit, Helping Give Away Psychological Science (HGAPS) and the work that HGAPS is doing to promote open science. This includes utilizing free platforms such as OSF and Wiki platforms to disseminate information. He concludes with a discussion on the HGAPS Assessment Center and the free assessment resources housed there.

Watch the YouTube recording of the video here.

Tools For Lab Building: Training Undergraduate Research Assistants

Presented by Sarah Racz, Ph.D. and Yo Jackson, Ph.D.

Description

For many research teams, undergraduate research assistants (RA) form a core component of their personnel. A key challenge involves not only the varying motivations of these personnel and their ultimate career goals, but also their relative inexperience with research generally. Often, we found ourselves immersing these students in their first research experiences. In this workshop, Dr. Racz and Jackson discuss concrete strategies for providing standardized research training experiences for undergraduates, with a focus on developing personnel to assist in accurate data collection and creating a hospitable work environment for students, post-doctoral fellows, staff, and faculty. There are many benefits of having undergraduate research assistants in your lab such as showing you are invested in training students, building your lab, and bringing in new ideas to the lab. When recruiting undergrad RAs, your university may have systems in place to assign these students to your lab or you can have open recruitment usually by advertisement or word of mouth. You should also have an application for students to apply, screening criteria for applicants, and an interview process. Once RAs have been hired, you should set clear expectations from the beginning and they should be outlined in a contract that the RA signs. You should have documents outlining the lab processes that RAs can go through and you can also utilize advanced RAs to help train new ones. It is good to set a hours per week expectation for RAs and to have a policy for when they miss scheduled lab time. Give specific tasks to RAs and have regular meetings to discuss tasks and lab duties. It is good to provide a range of skills and experiences to RAs and to have a benchmark so they have something to work towards. You may want to require a specific commitment to the lab such as 2 semesters to ensure retention in the lab as well as reward good performance with more responsibilities. You should also have clear guidelines for publishing with undergrad RAs and these opportunities should be reserved for RAs who have been in the lab for a while and have shown good performance.

Watch the YouTube Recording here.

Building and Maintaining Research Partnerships with Schools

Presented by Tim Cavell, Ph.D. and Elizabeth Talbott, Ph.D.

Description

A key component of research embedded in primary and secondary schools involves building long-term partnerships with key stakeholders in the school system. These stakeholders include administrators, teachers, classroom aids, school staff, and parents. In this workshop, Drs. Cavell and Talbott provide concrete advice on how to build lasting partnerships with school systems in an effort to conduct research with meaningful impacts on these systems. Schools are important and useful settings to conduct research in since they serve all children from pre-k to 21 years old. When thinking about partnering with a school for research, it is important to consider the culture and history of the school, the current events in the district, the geography of the schools you would like to partner with, and the district's needs. Before trying to partner with a school, you should familiarize yourself with the relationship the school may already have with researchers and whether your project would be better served in another community such as schools that primarily serve underrepresented students. You should also determine who has the authority to greenlight or stop your project and should contact that individual. Sometimes it is helpful to get a referral from someone who has a good relationship with that school or district. It is usually best to start with a phone call when trying to make contact. You should have an initial ask prepared and be ready to play the long game. It can be helpful to have the school identify a point of contact for you so you know who to communicate with. When thinking about conducting research in schools you should consider some key aspects of what will be required of schools. Your research should try to require little if any work from school staff, have minimal disruption to instructional time, be valuable to the teachers and staff, require minimal space in the school for your research team to conduct their work, among others. Obtaining consent is a very important aspect to conducting research in schools and you should think about how to best obtain it. Think about how you want to collect the data in schools considering both personnel needed and the measures you will use. Lastly, prepare your graduate students to conduct research in schools using your knowledge from working with schools.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

Getting Your First Grant

Presented by Deborah Drabick, Ph.D. and Katie Ehrlich, Ph.D.

Description

Submitting your first grant as a Ph.D. can appear on the surface to be a daunting task, with many expectations, requirements, and complicated forms. In this workshop, Drs. Drabick and Ehrlich leverage years of experience with extramural funding to explain the grant submission process, and provide attendees with concrete tools for submitting successful applications via multiple post-Ph.D. mechanisms, including project grants and K Series applications. First, they cover why it is valuable to apply for a training grant. These reasons include gaining opportunities that may not otherwise be available, getting additional mentorship, have protected research time, and career development. There are several types of funding grants to choose from including NIH T series, K series, F series, and R series, the National Science Foundation training grant, and grants from private agencies. Depending on which grant type you choose, there are different requirements you need to consider. When telling your story in a grant application, you should build off of your graduate school focus. You should also discuss what is missing/unresolved in the field, discuss how you will learn from this research, and how the goal of the grant is relevant for the field. Consider the big trends in the field and how your work could fill the gaps. In order to make your application successful, you will need to show some preliminary data usually in the form of a pilot project. You will typically need a "track record" i.e., few publications in your area of interest in order for your application to be successful. Next, consider whether or not your need to bring in more senior individuals to the team and what other personnel you will need for the grant. It is important to be clear up front in what you are asking your team members to do. The next step is to formulate the budget. Think about staffing costs, including hiring full time personnel, graduate students, and Co-PIs. Once your application is under review, there are typically 3 reviewers who will rate your application in 5 areas on a scale from 1 to 9. These scores are used to create an overall impact score which are then used to determine who to fund. It is ideal to have multiple grants under review at a time. Once you have written one grant, it is easier to use that as a template and modify for the requirements of other funding agencies.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

Demystifying Academic Job Interviewing

Presented by Kathryn Humphreys and Jessica Schleider

Description

The academic job interview factors prominently into faculty hiring decisions. It represents a public sample of your program of research and your style of teaching, as well as your critical thinking, responsiveness to feedback, and a whole range of non-specific variables, like your "accessibility," "collegiality," or "likeability." Typically the academic job market "opens up" in June and July with applications being due September-December. The next stages involve screening interviews and then on-campus interviews with job offers, negotiations, and decisions happening December through April. In your application package, you will usually have a research statement, teaching statement, diversity statement, CV, cover letter, and references. To prepare for a interviews and job talks, you should attend as many of these as possible during graduate school, you should also research the institution and department in which you are applying to, and practice responses to questions they may ask. The screening interview is typically brief and standardized across candidates. When in interviews, remember to keep your answers concise as time is usually short. Be prepared to answer questions about your research, don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions, and remember to show enthusiasm for the job. Always send a thank you after interviews. If invited fro a job talk, make sure to practice with people in and outside of your field. Familiarize yourself with the faculty you will be meeting and their research. Make sure to ask questions that show you are interested, but be careful not to come across as arrogant. Think about how your work might connect with other faculty in the department. Be prepared to answer personal questions and know what you are/aren't willing to disclose and how you will handle those types of questions.

Watch the YouTube Recording of the Workshop here.

Preparing a Training Grant: Overview

Presented by Stephen Becker, Ph.D. and Meghan Miller, Ph.D.

Description

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, Dr. Becker and Miller 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. There are several reasons to apply to training grants including grant-writing experience, practice applying to a federal funding agency, opportunities gained, additional mentorship and/or consultation, protected time for independent research, and career advancement. The NIH has F and K grants available for training. The National Science Foundation and Institute for Education Services among others also offer training grant opportunities. Make sure to check the requirements for each grant. The presenters go into detail about the anatomy of each grant type in this presentation. When telling your story make sure to build on your graduate school focus, extend to a new area or skill set, discuss the gaps and how your research will allow you to learn, and how the goal/topic is relevant and important to the field. 3 reviewers rate your application on a scale from 1-9 and those scores are used to create an average impact score which is then used for the final decision. Each grant has specific areas in which they rate your application, so make sure to know those areas and address each one in your application. It is best to start on your application early and build a timeline for getting it done. Getting an example of a funded grant can also be helpful.

Watch the YouTube recording of the workshop here.

Ceremony for the Future Directions Launch Award

Jessie Greenlee

• Award Winner in the area of Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Wisonsin-Madson

About the award recipient

Jessie is a recipient of the 2020 Future Directions Launch Award in Autism. Jessie completed a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She received her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University in 2019. Jessie’s research investigates the mechanisms through which individual and contextual factors are associated with mental and physical health disparities in vulnerable populations. She is particularly interested in understanding how families promote healthy social and emotional development in individuals with special healthcare needs. Jessie is currently working on several projects aimed at understanding how different sub-system family processes (e.g., marital conflict, co-parenting, parent-child relationship quality) impact outcomes for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder. Jessie is currently hold a position as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Lafayette College in PA. Learn more about Jessie's work here: www.researchgate.net/profile/Jessica_Greenlee

Watch the YouTube recording of the remarks here.

Tyler McFayden

• Award Winner in the area of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Development
• Received Ph.D. at Virginia Tech

About the award recipient

Tyler received the 2020 Future Directions Launch Award in Autism. She is a current predoctoral clinical intern at the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill’s (UNC-CH) Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities. Tyler plans to remain at UNC-CH for her postdoctoral training to participate in the NIMH-funded T32 Postdoctoral Research Training Program focusing on intellectual and developmental disabilities. Tyler attended Virginia Tech’s Clinical and Developmental Psychological doctoral program under the mentorship of Dr. Thomas Ollendick, where she worked in a typically developing infant lab, studying early language development, and an autism lab investigating endophenotypes of social communication. Tyler is particularly interested in how language develops in early infancy and in groups without spoken language (e.g., Deaf/Hard of Hearing and minimally-verbal/partially speaking autistic youth) to best inform social communication interventions. Learn more about Tyler’s work here: www.researchgate.net/profile/Tyler_Mcfayden

Watch the YouTube recording of the remarks here.