Introducing APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards

Earlier this year the APA revised its Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS). Originally published in 2008, the 2018 revision provides much-needed updates to APA’s standards for publication and reviews timely issues of debate revolving around reproducibility and preregistration. In addition and for the first time, JARS incorporates guidelines for writing about qualitative/mixed methods research, meaning that the JARS is now specific to either the use of quantitative methods (JARS-Quant) or qualitative (JARS-Qual). Both JARS are accessible as open access publications and appear alongside an editorial introducing the standards within a recent issue of the American Psychologist:

JARS-Quant: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

JARS-Qual: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

Editorial: Journal Article Reporting Standards

The JARS-Quant and JARS-Qual papers are excellent resources when considered in full. Below we’ve compiled several reasons why APAGS members may be interested in considering these resources when designing and reporting results from their own research and when serving as reviewers.

JARS-Quant

Guidance on how to report non-experimental research

While the JARS-Quant was originally written to offer guidance on how to report studies with experimental manipulations, the 2018 revision offers new guidance on how to report results from studies that are observational, correlational, or which use a natural design (See JARS-Quant Table 3). This expands the scope of JARS considerably and is a much-welcomed resource for those of us who complete non-experimental research.

Inclusion of sophisticated statistical approaches

As the need for more sophisticated statistical approaches for analysis continues to grow, JARS-Quant now offers guidance on what to report when using structural equation modeling (SEM), Bayesian statistics, meta-analytic research methods, and single-case studies (e.g., N-of-1 studies). Inclusion of these diverse approaches to analyzing data offer students up-front transparency in terms of what APA considers appropriate for reporting results from these less ‘straight-forward’ approaches.

Reporting standards for replication studies

Given heightened interest surrounding issues of reproducibility in psychological science, JARS-Quant provides new guidelines for what to report when publishing a replication study. Authors should consider suitability of replication studies for their individual studies; yet, these guidelines offer a good starting point for what details to consider including in a manuscript so that your study can be considered for replication. Conversely, these guidelines are informative when attempting to replicate another scientist’s work. As new cultural shifts in our field that recognizes the importance and value of replicability, this provides helpful guidance on what information is useful and needed in published manuscripts in order to foster replication science.

JARS-Qual

Detailed discussion on what constitutes qualitative research and best reporting practices

The JARS-Qual includes a comprehensive yet basic primer for any reader interested in what constitutes qualitative research. In particular, the standards offer guidance regarding the number of participants that typically appear in qualitative research, the types of hypotheses that are tested, modes of data collection, and ways in which hypotheses may be validated. These guidelines further provide much needed clarification on what information needs to be reported and how.

Recommendations for reviewers reading qualitative research

As editorial board members for Translational Issues in Psychological Science, we often hear from student reviewers that they do not feel comfortable reviewing qualitative manuscripts given a lack of expertise in this arena. As such, we were thoroughly impressed to learn that detailed recommendations for reviewers appear within JARS-Qual (Table 1) to help these individuals better evaluate qualitative research integrity. These guidelines are written in lay language and provide examples of what sections should appear within a qualitative manuscript, thereby providing necessary details to keep handy when consuming qualitative research.

Inclusion of standards for mixed methods designs

As quantitative and qualitative research vary considerably in terms of design and analysis structure, it is particularly nice to see an entire section detailing how to integrate both methods (See section: Mixed Methods Article Reporting Standards [MMARS]). This makes the JARS-Qual a comprehensive tool for any investigator wishing to complete a stand-alone qualitative study or, alternatively, using limited qualitative data collection to help inform quantitative work.

Author Bios

Jacklynn Fitzgerald, PhD currently serves as the APAGS Member-at-Large for Research and Academic Affairs. She is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Department of Psychology, where she studies the impact of psychological trauma on neural functioning during emotion and emotion regulation. Outside of the lab she considers ways training in psychological science can be improved, and is committed to advancing under-represented students in the sciences, particularly women. She can be contacted here.

Renee Cloutier, MS currently serves as the APAGS Science Committee Chair. She is a fifth year doctoral student in the Experimental Psychology/Behavioral Science program at the University of North Texas and is a F31 recipient from NIDA/NIH. She studies the role of anxiety and social context in substance use behaviors/cognitions among adolescents and emerging adults. In addition to her research, she seeks ways to promote science within psychology and devotes her time to mentoring younger students. She can be contacted here.

APA Responds to ASPPB about the EPPP Part 2 Exam

May 8, 2018

Dear peers,

In late 2017, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) released more details about the EPPP Part 2 examination related to content, timing, and costs (details of which can be found here, particularly under “What’s New.”)

While the committees at APA representing graduate students and early career psychologists (APAGS, and CECP, respectively) have been advocating intensely for its constituents within APA, to ASPPB and to other stakeholders since the first announcement of the EPPP Part 2 in Spring 2016, this new information prompted our groups to request APA at large prepare an official request letter to ASPPB. The APAGS committee and CECP thoroughly advised the APA Board of Directors, to which we directly report, on several matters that were raised by our members through listservs, phone calls, and meetings.

On behalf of thousands of graduate student affiliates and early career members, and the field of psychology as a whole, the APA Board of Directors (Board) issued a letter to ASPPB on April 6, 2018. The letter highlighted three areas: The cost of the examinations, the timing of these examinations in the sequence of training, and the potential for their misuse. We summarize the concerns here:

On cost, ASPPB announced that the EPPP Part 2 would cost an up-front fee of $600. The cost of the existing EPPP, which will become Part 1 when Part 2 is implemented, will remain $600, doubling the total examination fee to $1,200. APA in turn advocated for ASPPB to consider the financial burden the test would create for students, postdocs, and ECPs with limited resources. As well, ASPPB was asked to support state-by-state efforts to count pre-internship hours for licensure, which would allow graduates to get licensed and earn a licensed psychologist’s salary sooner.
On timing, ASPPB announced that when the EPPP Part 2 is released, doctoral students from accredited programs who had completed all necessary coursework (not inclusive of dissertation or internship) would be able to take the EPPP Part 1 (the existing examination) prior to graduating. APA in turn advocated that ASPPB develop more clear guidelines about course-completion requirements for taking the Part 1 early, and asked ASPPB to do its own review to determine student eligibility in the cases where doctoral institutions may not be keen to sign off on a student’s eligibility.
On validity and potential misuse of the exam, APA named four concerns. First, APA advocated against the EPPP Part 1 being used as a criterion on internship applications or as penalty for underperforming students by their doctoral programs; no decisions have been made about these issues so our advocacy is proactive. Second, APA advocated for the Part 2 not to be used in disciplinary proceedings. Third, APA advocated the need to ensure that already-licensed psychologists would be universally and indefinitely ‘grandfathered’ in to new states where they seek licensure, specifically by not needing to take the Part 2. Fourth, APA indicated that there may or could be possible bias in test scores worthy of attention. CECP and APAGS raised with APA’s Board our concerns about test pass-rate differences by demographic groups and would like to see a more systemic analysis of the tests by groups.

Please note, APAGS and CECP anticipate that the EPPP Part 2 will be implemented into the licensure process across North America. It is the culmination of years of movement in psychology to assess professional skill and competency. There also does not appear to be momentum to take a holistic review of the EPPP Part 1 in light of the new Part 2. We are doing what we feel has strategic possibility by raising the concerns above, and we are thankful that the APA Board of Directors is working hard on our behalf. We trust that ASPPB will respond in due time, and we endeavor to keep you abreast of any announcements that affect the tests and test-takers. APAGS and CECP openly welcomes your dialogue on these matters.

Sincerely,

Justin Karr, MS, APAGS Chair

Tyson Bailey, PsyD, CECP Chair

Editor’s Note – See previous gradPSYCH Blog posts about the EPPP Part 2:

If Helplessness is Learned, Success Can Also be Learned

What is learned helplessness?

Sometimes, we set low expectations or do not try to seize new opportunities because we do not want to be faced with disappointment. While there may be reasons for such behavior, it can really limit the scope of experiences we allow ourselves to have.

When people experience failure repeatedly, they often tend to give up without trying, even if they have the ability to succeed. This is called “learned helplessness.” Learned helplessness is a phenomenon coined by Martin Seligman and Steven Maier while studying avoidance learning and formation of fear conditioning.

In 1967, at the University of Pennsylvania, Seligman and Maier separated 24 dogs into three groups. The dogs were put into harnesses and received electric shocks. In group 1 (escape group), dogs could end the electric shocks by pressing a lever with their noses. In group 2 (no-escape group/experiment group):, they did not have a lever and could not avoid the electric shocks. In group 3 (no harness control group), dogs did not receive any electric shock.

After spending 24 hours in harnesses, the dogs were placed in a different box in which they could avoid the electrical shocks by jumping over a low barrier to the other side. Here’s what happened: Dogs in group 1 and 3 avoided electric shocks by jumping over the barrier, but dogs in group 2 — the group that had no choice to avoid the shocks — crouched in the corner and received all shock. That is, the dogs in group 2 exhibited learned helplessness. Seligman found that after repeated failures of avoiding electric shocks, the dogs in group 2 learned that their behavior didn’t impact the electric shocks and the shocks were uncontrollable. Thus, the dogs gave up trying to avoid the electric shocks altogether.

Learned helplessness can be easily observed in our everyday lives. For example, if one studies hard for math exams but consistently does not earn good grades, that person may stop investing time in studying math. Or, if a person is unable to find a job even after applying and interviewing many times, they can eventually give up and discontinue their job search. Learned helplessness can be seen in politics as well. People are able to cast votes in elections but if they feel that there is no change, some will give up and stop voting. The thought, “Even if I vote, nothing changes,” becomes inscribed in their minds.

When we cannot control our external environment, we can fall into helplessness and stop trying to improve our situation.

What are the signs of learned helplessness?

Learned helplessness has three core characteristics:

When a person faces failure of learning, he or she shows the tendency to give up.
A person avoids one’s responsibility as the cause of failure.
When one’s responsibility is recognized, there is tendency to attribute the cause of failure to one’s lack of ability rather than lack of effort.

If one attributes the cause of negative events to one’s fault (internal attribution), one considers oneself more negatively than in the case of attributing the cause to environment or other people (external attribution).

The experience of repeated failure causes emotional, motivational, and cognitive harm. The resulting combination of signs include lack of confidence, depression or negative perception, lack of control, lack of persistence, and lack of responsibility. If such signs are neglected without proper treatment for an extended period of time, they could turn into disorders that threaten one’s social psychological well-being.

How can we overcome learned helplessness?

To overcome learned helplessness, we should increase the number of successful experiences by setting achievable goals. For example, if the goal is to learn a foreign language, set an attainable goal such as memorizing 10 vocabulary words in that language. Once this goal has been achieved, it will create a positive memory of success. These continued positive experiences will gradually build confidence. Later, you can set goals with a higher level of difficulty and gradually push away negative memories of failure. These small achievements can help reduce the effects of learned helplessness.

Another technique to overcome learned helplessness is to grow “failure resistance.” That is, the ability to overcome failure and maintain a positive outlook. To effectively grow failure resistance and escape from situations of helplessness, people can encourage themselves to think positively and reframe negative thoughts. For example, think about a failure as an obstacle to overcome in order to reach an ultimate success. This reframe helps to put negative experiences into perspective and will keep you from spiraling into helplessness.

If we do not give up, even in moments of pain and despair, a whole new world can open up for us. For example, persistence can help us land a new job that can lead to new, interesting paths — or lead us to friendships with people who initially did not seem to fit in our lives. These are completely unexpected experiences. But if we do not try, the opportunity for a variety of experiences will be drastically reduced.

If helplessness has been learned, success can also be learned.

Hanna Park received her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology at Columbia University and Master’s degree in Cognitive Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. She currently works as a journalist for the Korean Psychological Association.

CARED Perspectives: Ensuring That All Children Have a Seat at the Table When Discussing Gun Reform

This blog post is the first in the series, “CARED Perspectives,” developed by the APAGS Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity. This series will discuss current events and how these events relate to graduate students in psychology. If you are interested in contributing to the CARED Perspectives series, please contact Lincoln Hill.

Ensuring that All Children Have a Seat at the Table When Discussing Gun Reform

By Lincoln Hill

In response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting on February 14th, 2018 where 17 people were killed and many more were injured, student survivors organized and are continuing to develop youth-led protests to advocate for comprehensive legislation towards gun reform. Despite the acuity of the recent traumatic events that impacted their whole community, these students participated in a nationally televised townhall with elected officials just one week after the shooting, publicly challenging these officials to pass gun reform legislation; organized a march with approximately 832 events worldwide to keep children safer in schools just five weeks later; and structured a national school walkout day inviting students across the world to participate.

Many, myself included, have been astonished by what these students have accomplished in such a short amount of time (and with minimal adult intervention) . As a graduate assistant with Loyola University Chicago’s Center for the Human Rights of Children, I view the student led protests as a prime example of tenets from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in action, particularly the child’s right to participate in decision making processes that directly affect them. Additionally, as a Black counseling psychologist-in-training with a focus on the mental health of racial/ethnic minority students, I am primarily struck by the public’s receptiveness to these youth-led protests compared to more critical media coverage of similar youth-led initiatives advocating for the safety of Black youth such as Black Lives Matter and The Dream Defenders. What do these response variations mean from a social justice perspective, particularly when efforts to advocate on behalf of Black youth who are disproportionately impacted by gun violence aren’t viewed as favorably by the public?

In the US, Black children and adolescents are excessively impacted by gun violence and are four times more likely to die by guns when compared to their White counterparts. Perhaps this stark reality contributes to the extremely high rate of suicide among Black children ages 5-11 years old — a rate that has nearly doubled in the past two decades, while that of White children has steadily decreased. For children and adolescents living in violent neighborhoods and communities, witnessing shootings can lead to a plethora of psychosocial hardships including posttraumatic stress that can impact them into adulthood.

As psychologists-in-training, we have a duty to respond and support all children impacted by gun violence including those commonly left out of discourses pertaining to gun reform. While we take steps as a field advocating for legislative changes protecting the rights of children, we must challenge ourselves to provide platforms that amplify all children’s voices.

We want to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.

Graduate Student Researchers for the Win

adult-attractive-beauty-255268 Have you ever wondered how to get financial support for your research? APA maintains a directory with hundreds of opportunities for funding psychological research. Today, we take a closer look at one particular grant for graduate students and the amazing projects that will be getting a $1,000 boost.

Every year, APAGS sponsors the Psychological Science Research Grant (PSRG) to provide support for several graduate students conducting psychology research, with additional funding reserved specifically for diversity-focused studies. This $1,000 grant is used to fund innovative psychological science research projects. Graduate students in all fields of psychology and neuroscience (who are also APA student affiliates) are eligible.

PSRG netted a very competitive applicant pool this year. After careful review, 14 applicants were selected to receive funding. These students span several universities and research areas, including social, cognitive, clinical, community, evolutionary, and moral psychology. Seven of these proposed research projects specifically related to diversity, as defined by APA’s 2017 Multicultural Guidelines.

Here’s a brief peek of the 2017 winning projects:

Steven Hobaica (Washington State University) will be studying transgender individuals in cisnormative sex education. Steven aims to understand how exclusive educational experiences may affect transgender individuals’ physical and mental health outcomes, self-conceptions, and relationships.
Laura Werner (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) will be studying the aging of working memory. Laura plans to investigate whether processing speed and inhibition account for different aspects of working memory performance and age-related decline in working memory.
Amanda Sanchez (Florida International University) will be studying whether cultural formulation improves satisfaction, treatment engagement, and clinical outcomes among traditionally underserved children. As part of a dissertation, Amanda plans to augment assessment procedures for child behavior problems with a brief cultural assessment, as well as assess the effects of barriers to care on this augmentation.
Alyssa De Vito (Louisiana State University) will be studying the predictive utility of intraindividual cognitive variability measures as an early marker of cognitive decline. Alyssa will be working with individuals with mild cognitive impairment and analyzing intraindividual variability in executive functioning, memory, and timed performance tasks.
Erica Page (University of Cincinnati) will be developing and testing a causal framework between microaggressions and negative health outcomes. Erica aims to determine if microaggressions elicit physiological stress responses and lead to declines in working memory performance.
Amy Wing-Lam Chong (Cornell University) will be examining the extent to which age-related performance differences on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) can be explained by reductions in exploration preferences and learning, and differences in risk preferences.
Julia Briskin (Wayne State University) will be studying the effect smartphone usage during in-person interactions with romantic partners has on romantic relationships. Julia’s research will provide and empirically test a theoretical framework to understand this effect, and identify potential ways to mitigate it.
Kyle Simon (University of Kentucky) will be developing a scale for conceptual future parenthood grief in LGBTQ+ individuals. Kyle plans to assess the reliability and validity of a newly created measure that gauges the level of grief that LGBTQ+ people experience about potentially never achieving a parenting identity.
Haley Bell (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) will be developing a multidimensional measure of gender dysphoria. Haley aims to develop, validate, and assess the reliability of the Gender Dysphoria Measure.
Megan Williams (University of Pennsylvania) will be studying body odors’ influence on mate quality estimation. Megan is interested in the mechanism by which body odors inform mate quality assessment, specifically sexual disgust and sexual attraction.
Megan Goldring (Columbia University) will be studying morality, social conformity, and blame attributions. Megan’s research on moral decision making will investigate the extent to which attributions of blame and praise depend on social conformity factors, agency, and intent, for judgements of commonplace and severe moral transgressions.
Sarah Arango (University of Texas at Austin) will be studying the ways that Syrian refugee youth living in Jordan develop resilience and cope with trauma and chronic stress. As a dissertation study, Sarah aims to examine the link between daily stressors, traumatic events, coping flexibility, well-being, and psychological distress in this population.
Hanan Hashem (University of Texas at Austin) will study solo status, religious identity, and ethnic identity as predictors of psychological distress and discrimination of American Muslim women.
Rachel Sweenie (University of Florida) will study the associations between stable and fluctuating psychosocial variables and inhaled corticosteroid treatment adherence, using ecological momentary assessment.

Congratulations to all our winners. We are excited to see whose name will be on the list next year. We hope it is yours! Be sure to send in your application before the deadline in early December for the 2018 PSRG.

The APAGS Science Committee would like to thank and acknowledge the help and support we received in reviewing applications this year. This includes members of the APAGS CARED and CSOGD Committees, as well as our Ad Hoc Reviewers: Emily Bernstein, Harvard University; Joshua Goodman , UC Santa Barbara; Danielle Krusemark, Florida State University; Brittany Lang, University of South Florida; and Danielle Taylor, Oklahoma State University.

Written by:

Brielle James (BS), Member, APAGS Science Committee Renee Cloutier (MS), Chair, APAGS Science Committee