# Helping Give Away Psychological Science/Conferences/ABCT2022

HGAPS is finding new ways to make psychological science conferences more accessible!
Here are examples from APA 2022 and the JCCAP Future Directions Forum. Coming soon... ABCT! ~ More at HGAPS.org ~
Helping Give Away Psychological Science (HGAPS, pronounced as two syllables: "H-Gaps") is a nonprofit (501c3) service organization with affiliated chapters at multiple universities. HGAPS is dedicated to helping the best information about psychological science reach the people who would benefit. Our goal is to build small groups to improve the information about psychology on Wikipedia and in the community. We aim to make the pages reach the level of the best college textbook on the topic and help clinicians, clients, and educators each find high-quality resources quickly. View the HGAPS Website
Share this page by clicking the following social media and interactive platforms:
Share article  Email | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Mendeley | ResearchGate

# HGAPS at the 2022 Convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) - New York City

There are several programming events at the convention featuring HGAPS or resources and materials that HGAPS has helped develop. Programming will be available at your HGAPS YouTube channel (please subscribe!).
HGAPS has done similar activities at ABCT in previous years, and on a larger scale at some other meetings, including some sessions at APA and the JCCAP Future Directions Forum. With support from a grant from the WikiMedia Foundation, we have created an expanded example of what using OSF.io and Wikiversity together to improve access to information presented at conferences.

## Symposium

HGAPS members collaborate with members of other labs to contribute to scheduled symposia.

### Gauging the Blast: Developing a New Assessment of Explosive Outbursts in a Nationally Representative Sample of Youth*

Joshua A. Langfus$^{1,}$, Cecil Reynolds$^2$, Robert L. Findling$^3$, Eric A. Youngstrom$^1$
$^1$ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
$^2$ Texas A&M University
$^3$ Virginia Commonwealth University
*Contribution to Innovations in Evidence-Based Assessments: Novel Strategies for Supporting Public Health, Policy, Research, and Practice (Symposium #15)
Chair: Tristan Maesaka, M.A.; Discussant: Michael Southam-Gerow, Ph.D.
Slides and Supplemental Materials here
Background: Impulsive aggression (IA) in youth is common, impairing, and transdiagnostic in the current nosology. Having a brief, valid, and free tool to assess for these symptoms would improve treatment planning and outcome tracking. Other aggression assessments are proprietary, do not focus on aggressive behavior, or have not been widely validated. This work explores the psychometric properties and invariance of a new, free 16-item measure for reactive aggression.
Methods: A representative US sample of parents of children ages 6 to 18 years (N=1163) completed a novel new measure of mood and behavior problems. Latent class analysis of expert ratings identified 43 items measuring IA. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) assigned items to two highly correlated scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item reliability identified 16 items with representative content coverage and high discrimination. Receiver operator characteristic curves evaluated predictive power to identify children medicated for ADHD, irritability, and aggressive behavior. Multi-group CFA evaluated invariance across biological sex and race.
Results: EFA guided the selection of 16 items; CFA indicated good fit (TLI=.984, RMSEA=.068) for two highly-correlated (r=.88) factors, each high internal consistency (α>.88). IRT analyses indicated good precision across severity levels ranging from high normal to severely clinically elevated. Treating the items as a single scale, higher scores predicted receiving medication for aggression (AUC=.78), irritability (AUC=.73), and ADHD (non-stimulant AUC=.69, stimulant AUC=.67). Finally, multi-group CFAs showed evidence of strong invariance across race and sex groups.
Discussion: This new tool shows high internal consistency and good criterion validity against clinically-relevant outcomes. It also shows promise in terms of measurement equivalence across race and biological sex groups, reducing potential measurement bias in treatment and services research. An unbiased, free tool would help clinicians identify children who might most benefit from treatment for aggression. Future directions include measuring sensitivity to treatment effects in a clinical sample.

#### Suggested Readings

* Youngstrom, E. A., Van Meter, A., Frazier, T. W., Hunsley, J., Prinstein, M. J., Ong, M. L., & Youngstrom, J. K. (2017). Evidence‐based assessment as an integrative model for applying psychological science to guide the voyage of treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(4), 331-363.
* Ebesutani, C. K. (2019). The Social-Emotional, Evidence-based Developmental Strengths Questionnaire: A Reliability and Validity Study. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(2), 215-236.
* Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
Related materials, including slides, on OSF.

## Evidence-based Assessment and Treatment Augmentation for Depression and Bipolar Disorders in Youth and Early Adulthood (Institute #6)

Presenter: Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & HGAPS.org
Mood disorders can start in childhood, and often worsen in adolescence and early adulthood. Due to stigma, people often do not seek help, and the course of illness can be intermittent, and complicated. Recently, rates of mood problems and self-injury have increased, especially in early adulthood, with COVID and social distancing adding to the problem. Fortunately, there has been a surge of evidence about the validity of carefully diagnosed mood disorders in youth, along with better evidence-based tools for assessment and treatment. This session concentrates on the best free assessments to use for screening, differential diagnosis and treatment planning, progress and outcome tracking, as well as ways to quickly evaluate alternative treatments and new advances. Light therapy, blue-light blocking, omega-3 fatty acids, CBD oil – are any of these evidence-based? Could they augment more conventional psychotherapy approaches? How do we answer patient questions and help them sort through the competing claims that they find on social media and the internet? The session also addresses dissemination and implementation support methods that can increase the accessibility of assessment, prevention, and early intervention services.

### Learning goals for the session

At the end of the session, the learner will be able to:
* Describe the use of three evidence-based assessment methods that aid in differential diagnosis and measuring treatment response.
* Recognize four symptoms and risk factors that are helpful in recognizing bipolar disorder, and which may be red herrings" that are common to other conditions;.
* Find and use at least 20 free scales for screening, severity, and outcome tracking.
* Search TRIP database and other aggregators to find clinically useful summaries quickly.
* Describe how three sleep hygiene techniques could help with improving outcomes across most mood disorders.
* Long-term Goal: Over the coming year, add free assessment tools to differentiate types of mood and internalizing disorders, using for case formulation and progress tracking.
* Long-term Goal: Begin gathering more information about sleep, exercise, and diet when working with clients with mood issues.

### Free copy of the slides!

Free, shareable version of the slides from the institute are available here. They have a Creative Commons license on them, showing how we can make it clear when and how we want to share materials. The CC BY 4.0 license means that you are allowed to use the slides, and remix them, so long as you include a citation to the original work. Please send the slides to friends and colleagues, and use whatever is helpful in your own work!
The deck also includes links to many pages and resources, as well as shortened links and QR Codes, showing various ways that content can be shared using different technologies.

### Outline

Outline:
* Clinical picture
** Contrast the typical presentation of depression and bipolar disorder in youths and adults;
** discuss DSM-5 vs. ICD-11 revisions
** Learn about “spectrum” bipolar disorders
*** cyclothymia
*** Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorders
*** impairment and course
* How common are different mood disorders?
** Recognize how often bipolar and other disorders occur in different settings
*** Private practice
*** High schools
*** colleges,
*** outpatient services,
*** forensic settings
*** inpatient units
* Best of the free assessments
** Aids for differential diagnosis
** Goal setting
** Measuring progress and outcome
* Apply new methods for interpreting test results
** Thinking in terms of probability
** Rules of thumb
** Benchmarking change
* Where to find new information and free tools?
** TRIP, Wiki, searching smarter
** Learn about free online and assessment tools to improve diagnosis
** Outcome
* Thinking in terms of lifestyle change for managing mood
** Surprising data about sleep
** Diet
** Exercise

## Open Science: The Future of Psychology (Panel #2)
### General information

* Moderator: Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo, Ph.D.
* Presenters : Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D., Mitchell J. Prinstein, Ph.D, ABPP, John Young, Ph.D., Eiko Fried, Ph.D, Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., Kelee L. Pacion, M.A.
This year’s ABCT convention theme is: “Emergency & Disaster Preparedness and Response: Using Cognitive and Behavioral Science to Make an Impact.” The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed incredible strengths and formidable weaknesses in our preparedness and response to a global health emergency. The rapid development of effective vaccines was in large part due the open collaboration and sharing of data amongst scientists across the globe. Nevertheless, our field’s scientific findings are still primarily published in academic journals that are not accessible to the general public. Furthermore, less than half of published psychological findings are successfully reproduced, illustrating the need for open access to data sets and sharing of research protocols and materials amongst research teams. Although open access journals are on the rise, there still is a significant gap in how psychological science, tools, and information reaches the public in an open, digestible, and accessible manner. Furthermore, the siloed model of doing science hinders our ability to replicate findings, rigorously examine contradicting findings, answer complex questions, and have a broader and timely impact.
This invited panel will bring together leading researchers and experts in the field of psychological science (and beyond) who are engaging in Open Science efforts to “help give away psychological science.” The panelists will explain what Open Science is and its relevance to the field of psychology and CBT specifically. They will discuss topics such as who benefits from Open Science? How is Open Science currently being used in the field of psychology/CBT and why should we be paying attention? What technology, forums, tools, and infrastructure are currently being used to promote Open Science? What are the potential benefits, as well as unintended consequences of Open Science? How can Open Science play a role in communicating the evidence for cognitive behavioral interventions to the public and policymakers to effect change? How can Open Science combat misinformation? And most importantly, what are some action steps towards “helping to give away psychological science”, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and future disasters and emergencies.

### Panel Objectives

At the end of the session, the learner will be able to:
* Describe what is Open Science and its relevance to the field of psychology and CBT.
* List specific ways in which Open Science is currently being utilized in the filed of psychology, including tools, technology, forums and infrastructure aiding its dissemination.
* Describe concrete action steps towards “helping to give away psychological science.”

### Suggested Readings

* Crüwell, S., Doorn, J. van, Etz, A., Makel, M., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J., … Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2018). 8 Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List. PsyArXiv Preprints. http://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/CFZYX.
* Foster, E.D. & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 203–206. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.88. PMCID: PMC5370619.
* Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Du Sert, N. P., ... & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

## Posters

In addition to scheduled programming, HGAPS volunteers completed several posters using open science tools and skills.

### Comparison of Hypomania Checklist Psychometrics in Pre-COVID Pandemic and Pandemic-Era Samples (General Session).

John V. Miller, J.D.$^{1,2}$ Rachael M. Kang, M.A.$^2$ Chase M. DuBois, B.A.$^{2,3}$ Grace A. Little, B.A.$^{2,3}$ Lillian M. Pitts, $^{3,4}$ Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.$^{2,3}$
$^1$ Stony Brook University
$^2$ Helping Give Away Psychological Science
$^3$ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
$^4$Carolina School of Science and Mathematics
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes in access to psychological assessment. Remote-access screening helped to address this need, but little is known about the effect of pandemic conditions on the reliability and validity of these screening assessments. The Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32-R1) can be administered remotely to screen for bipolar disorders among individuals displaying symptoms of major depressive disorder, but to our knowledge, no study has examined its validity during pandemic conditions. Pandemic conditions may have influenced item relationships with the latent factor structure of the assessment and discrimination overall, reducing the usefulness of traditional indicators in hypomania screening. We hypothesized differences in factor loadings, item discrimination, and test sensitivity would emerge in items reflecting lifestyle habits due to pandemic restrictions, such as items relating to driving, physical activity, and clothing choice, or items reflecting risk-taking behaviors exacerbated during isolation, such as drinking or drug use.
Methods: Participants (N=10,800) between 18-88 years of age accessed the HCL-32-R1 remotely between 2017-2022 through the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance. Data were split into pre-pandemic and pandemic groups using the WHO declaration of pandemic on March 11, 2020 as the cutoff date. We compared maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis (ML EFA) models to examine changes in factor structure and item relationships between these groups. Item response theory (IRT) modeling of “Sunny'' and “Dark” subscales visualized item responses, assessed sensitivity, and determined subscale reliability.
Results & Discussion: Using a minimum loading of 0.4, ML EFA favored a 2-factor model corresponding to Sunny and Dark subscales in both conditions. Despite some item loadings inconsistent with the assignments suggested for clinical use, most items loaded onto the expected latent factors. Items’ factor loadings between groups were similar, with most loading differences between 0.00-0.05. Item 8 (“I spend too much money”) did not load onto Dark in the pandemic group, whereas “I smoke more cigarettes” did. This may reflect widespread lifestyle changes due to lockdowns, though it is unclear why other items (e.g. relating to driving, physical activity, clothing, drinking) were largely unaffected. The similarity of factor structure and loadings between groups did not suggest a need for confirmatory factor analysis. IRT Information Criterion Curves also demonstrated comparable discrimination and sensitivity on Sunny and Dark subscale items for pre-pandemic and pandemic groups. IRT reliability curves showed similar reliability above threshold (0.8) for both groups in the Sunny subscale (between 𝜃 ~ 0 and 2) and the Dark subscale (between 𝜃 ~ 0.5 and 1). Our findings suggest the HCL-32-R1 remained a reliable screening tool during pandemic conditions. Further, the HCL-32-R1 can be accessed for free and remotely. Its reliability and accessibility make it a clinically useful tool to respond to mental health needs in emergency situations. Limitations and future directions will be discussed.
Related materials, including poster and copy of the measure, on OSF.

### Disseminating Online, Evidence-Based Mental Health Resources (Dissemination and Implementation Science SIG)

Alyssa Herman, Alayna L. Park, Emma G. Choplin, Lily Deitcher, Jeremiah Hartsock, Cameron Lee, Hannah Paul, Sabrin Ghuman, and Eric A. Youngstrom
Introduction: To translate knowledge into action, many mental health professionals have synthesized mental health research into more accessible resources. Yet, limited information exists on the quality and scope of these resources. This study aimed to characterize free, online, and evidence-based mental health resources to aid future dissemination.
Methods: We invited mental health professionals to nominate resources. Participants (n=52) nominated 104 resources primarily consisting of homepages and links to more information. We received an additional 85 resources nominated through emails. Our team reviewed the original nominations and identified an additional 290 resources (e.g., fact sheets linked from a nominated homepage).
Results: Of the 475 total nominated resources, 70 were screened out due to not meeting the criteria of being free (n = 26; inter-screener reliability=94%), evidence-based (n=19; inter-screener reliability = 92%), and online (n=21; inter-screener reliability = 95%). The most common topics covered by resources were anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder (n = 69) suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (n = 60), and post-traumatic stress (n = 54). Resources commonly provided information about treatments (53%) and/or the problem (46%); only 29% of resources provided information on both.
Discussion: Findings show that many free, online, evidence-based resources are available and raise the question of whether the issue of information overload is being recreated with the resources intended to synthesize the evidence base.
Related materials, including poster and copy of the measure, on OSF.

### Exploring the Psychometrics of the Screen for Adult Anxiety Related Disorders (SCAARED) (Clinical Research Methods and Statistics Special Interest Group)*

Lia Follet, M.P.S., Natalie Charamut, M.P.S., Hide Okuno, M.P.S., Colin Park, Caroline Vincent, Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.
*This poster was awarded Best Poster at the Statistics SIG business meeting
ABSTRACT PLACEHOLDER
Related materials, including poster and copy of the measure, on OSF.

### The Latent Structure of Caregiver-Reported Mania in Youth: Reevaluating the Validity of the Child Mania Rating Scale (Bipolar Special Interest Group)

Caroline Vincent$^{1,2}$, Eric A. Youngstrom, Ph.D.$^{1,2}$, John V. Miller, J.D.$^{2,3}$, Jennifer K. Youngstrom, Ph.D.$^{1,2}$, & Robert L. Findling$^{2,4}$
$^1$ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
$^2$ Helping Give Away Psychological Science
$^3$ Stony Brook University
$^4$Virginia Commonwealth University
Introduction: Pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) is difficult to assess due to diagnostic symptom overlap with other more common pediatric disorders. The Child Mania Rating Scale (CMRS-P), a free parent-report measure, was created to better identify and differentiate mania. Prior research supports validity with parents of youths aged 9-17 seeking outpatient mental health, but have disagreed on the scale’s factor structure. This study seeks to replicate prior psychometric validations of the CMRS-P with an expanded age range while examining the factorial structure.
Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on data collected from parents of youths ages 5 to 18 from both an online assessment sample (N=575) and an outpatient, community clinic sample (N=521). Psychometric internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, Guttman's lambda 6, and standard error of the measure. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine factor structure and factor loadings above .30 were included in the analysis.
Results: CMRS-P ratings for the full measure were internally consistent across both the clinical sample (α=.893, λ=.915, SE$_m$=3.10) and the online sample (α=.900, λ=.920, SE$_m$=3.18). Exploratory factor analyses yielded a 4-factor solution for both samples, corresponding to Hyperactivity, Elated Mood, Irritability, and Psychosis.
Discussion: This study validated the CMRS-P with both samples and for each factor. Consistency in factor structure across two unrelated samples lends greater evidence to a four-factor solution of CMRS-P. Results further suggest that the CMRS-P total and factor scores can be meaningfully interpreted to assess the risk of bipolar disorders versus more common pediatric disorders. Related materials, including poster and copy of the measure, on OSF, Video on the HGAPS YouTube Channel.
Related materials, including poster and copy of the measure, on OSF.

## Wiki Pages

In line with the central mission of disseminating evidence-based psychological science, HGAPS volunteers have contributed to numerous pages on the Wikipedia and Wikiversity platforms. Here are two examples that both benefited from Rapid Grants from the WikiMedia Foundation.

### Leveraging Wiki Platforms for Academic Conferences

Working under an external grant obtained through the Wikimedia foundation, HGAPS contractors and volunteers worked to connect the Wiki community and The Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology's Future Directions Forum (JCCAP FDF). This project succeeded in its goal to improve and expand upon existing informational Wikiversity pages relating to the JCCAP FDF, additionally going on to create several living biography Wikipedia pages of notable psychologists whose groundbreaking work relates to the dissemination of evidence-based psychological science.
An example of a biography page created through this project is Jessica Schleider.
Links to the improved JCCAP FDF conference coverage pages can be found here.

### Compiling Psychological Resources Pertinent to the Series "Squid Game"

Working under another external grant obtained through the Wikimedia foundation, HGAPS volunteers collaborated with American and Korean psychologists and content experts to disseminate critical evidence-based psychological resources to both American and Korean audiences over the Wiki platform. This project successfully created vignettes that repackaged and expanded upon existing resources in response to the powerful examples of mental health crises illustrated in "Squid Game".
The Wikiversity page created through this initiative can be found here.
Share article  Email | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Mendeley | ResearchGate