ABCT Bipolar SIG/Annual Meeting/2017

= 2017 annual meeting: San Diego, CA=

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

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

4. Next steps for Bipolar SIG

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

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

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?