# 2017 annual meeting: San Diego, CA
## Organizational stuff
### 1. Presentation of Johnson-Youngstrom Poster Award

The award was presented to Tommy Ng for his work on meta-analyses of imaging. The prize was a $250 debit card. Congratulations!

### 2. Dues

Dues are $20/year for faculty and students are requested to contribute what they can. Submit payment online via PayPal, to Lauren's GMail account (see email).

### 3. Ideas for improving listserv

* Create a list: Name, email, current projects
* When preparing talks, compile symposiums. SIG members could submit talks, and the SIG can compile symposiums and submit.
* Sending around information, job offers, etc
* Organizing ABCT bipolar SIG at ISBD

### 4. Next steps for Bipolar SIG

* Send around Lauren Weinstock's paper in press
* Build bipolar disorder assessment battery matrix (Youngstrom, Miklowitz, Weinstock)
** Come up with a recommendation about core measures for a standard; need to include neurocog with Patty Walsh

## Problems with recruitment/retention
### 1. Recruitment

* Difficulty in recruitment of participants

#### 1.1 Solutions

* Video conferencing consenting, automated consent forms
* Truncated assessments, with assessments at different time points
* Human touch, e.g., sending snail mail, keeping in touch with participants' lives
* Getting research consent by approaching potential participants in waiting room
* Importance of well-trained research assistants to ensure participants' positive experience

### 2. Retention

* Emerging online data collection makes it more difficult for retention

#### 2.1 Solutions

* Incentive-based system if people don't come back
* Paying incentives based on number of completed trials (e.g., $0.01 per completed task, up to $50)
* Progressive reinforcement (earning Amazon gift cards, etc)
* Accounting for inflation (people get paid more over time)

### Ethical issues

* Discussed reinforcement for clinicians, paying extra -- not ethical

## Assessment
### Reliability

Inter-rater reliability is a key topic for validity of diagnoses, but there has been relatively little sharing of methods. One of the things that could be helpful is sharing methods and having a place to discuss issues and ideas.
* Andrew Freeman described procedures for video recording, and inter rater reliability. (<-- could elaborate here)
** What are best practices and feasible options for maintaining high inter-rater reliability in research?
*** Coding at symptom level
*** ADI-R as model of how to maintain reliability across groups -- biennial videos disseminated to maintain (Thanks, Talia!)
**** [ ] Look at ADI-R training system as a model to emulate
* Lauren Weinstock raised questions about whether to correct errors when more information becomes available, versus live with that as an aspect of reliability.
* Ben Goldstein made a distinction between clerical error vs. diagnostic evolution or incomplete clinical picture at snapshot
* David Miklowitz described training procedure on KSADS, focusing on agreement at item level (because easier to achieve than diagnosis level).
* Yee et al. JCCAP, filtered vs unfiltered ratings paper

### Rating scales

Meta-analyses are helping to establish which are the robust measures that continue to show good psychometrics across a variety of samples. This could be a place to talk about ideas for secondary analyses and also looking at the priority areas for future work.
Self report measures could provide a way to calibrate across raters or sites -- consistent method, no variance due to differences in training.

### Cross informant issues

(Let's invite Gaye!)

### Open Teaching of Psychological Science is a place that we are sharing scoring information,

REDCAP versus Qualtrics
What are the advantages and disadvantages of tightly controlled data capture versus more open systems?