SDSU/UCSD
Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology
Behavioral
Medicine Pro-seminar: Assessment Issues (Psychology 842)
Fall 2004
Thursdays:
8:30-11:10 a.m.
6363
Alvarado Court, 2nd Floor Conference Room B
Linda C.
Gallo, Ph.D.
Department
of Psychology
San Diego
State University
619-594-4833
This course provides an introduction to the theory, principles, and practical aspects of assessment in Behavioral Medicine/Health Psychology. Content will include general issues of measurement and specific measures of health behaviors and psychosocial constructs. A variety of approaches will be considered, including self-report, interview, physiological, and behavioral observation. When possible, approaches to measurement and specific tools will be compared and contrasted. The emphasis will be on assessment of individuals, although contextual measures will also receive attention. A combination of lectures, readings, and laboratory presentations will be utilized. Students will have the opportunity to convey their understanding of course material through class discussion, outside readings, formal presentation, and written products. The learning objectives of the course are as follows:
1.
To define the fields of Health Psychology and Behavioral
Medicine.
2.
To gain familiarity with general issues of measurement in
behavioral medicine.
3.
To acquire knowledge concerning the advantages and
disadvantages of specific measurement instruments in terms of theoretical
issues (e.g., sources of variation in the targeted construct, etiology of the
targeted construct, relation of the target to health outcomes).
4.
To acquire knowledge concerning the advantages and
disadvantages of measurement options in terms of practical issues (e.g.,
reliability, validity, respondent burden, costs).
5.
To acquire the ability to critically evaluate measurement
instruments in terms of theoretical and practical issues, and to choose among
available alternatives.
6.
To display the ability to critically evaluate and discuss
current research about measurement issues in behavioral medicine.
ASSIGNMENTS
During the 1-year Behavioral Medicine Pro-Seminar sequence,
you will complete two major assignments – a review paper and a NIH-type grant
proposal. The goal of these assignments
is to help you obtain experience with core skills necessary for academic health
psychologists. You may choose the
semester during which you will complete each of these major assignments (i.e.,
you may complete the review paper in fall semester, and the grant proposal in
spring semester, or vice versa). The
project completed in fall semester will contain a primary focus on assessment
issues, whereas the project completed in spring semester will focus on
intervention issues. Assignment details
specific to the assessment segment are described below.
Review Paper (60 points)
The goal of this assignment is to help you obtain experience in a critical skill for academic psychologists – writing a review paper. Papers will be integrative, scholarly reviews that would be suitable for publication and will be evaluated as if they had been submitted for publication, with written feedback provided. The paper should be 15-20 pages (excluding citations), double-spaced, typed (in APA format). There is no specific requirement for the number of citations that must be included in the review. You should include as many citations as are needed to address the chosen topic. Papers must include tables summarizing the reviewed research. This assignment will be worth 60% of your grade (i.e., 60 points). Choose one of the following options:
1.
Complete a review that represents a comprehensive, critical
evaluation of a measure that is widely used in behavioral medicine.
2.
Complete a review that compares and contrasts different
measures of a behavior or psychosocial construct relevant to health.
Additional information: Many of you have written research
articles, but you may never have written a comprehensive review paper. The purpose of this type of paper is to
survey research within a particular area.
The dual overarching goals of the review are description and evaluation
of the research. Hence, you will not
simply be citing all of the important, relevant research, but also comparing
and evaluating the findings, and synthesizing them in a manner that generates
conclusions and directions for future research.
There is no set format, but the typical organization is as
follows:
1. Introduce research question and why the topic is important.
2. Narrow research question to the focus of the current paper. For example, physical activity measurement might be the broad topic, but your paper might focus on studies evaluating measures for primary school-aged children, or self-report measures for adults, etc.
3. Briefly
outline the organization of the paper.
Ideally the paper will have an explicit conceptual basis or even a
formal model guiding the presentation and evaluation of studies.
4. Present a (brief)
Method section, describing the approach you adopted in reviewing the
literature, including search strategy, keywords used, databases surveyed, and
limits or particular emphases of your review.
5. Describe
studies in detail, including tables that organize the key aspects of each study
(e.g., authors, sample characteristics, measure used, results, comments). Tables are much more effective than text for
presenting the details of a study.
There are numerous examples in the literature of how to construct such
tables.
6. Synthesize,
compare and critically evaluate studies.
Use the information in the tables much as you would use data tables in
an empirical paper. Summarize key
findings and patterns in a Results section.
7. Discuss
the implications of the research – provide aggregate conclusions about the
studies you have reviewed, including suggestions for what the next steps should
be. Use the conceptual basis of the
paper to organize your findings and recommendations in the Discussion.
Note that
steps 5 and 6 are often presented in an integrative manner.
The following article is an excellent resource providing
further guidelines and issues in writing a review paper: Bem, D.J. (1995).
Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 172-177.
The full
text of this article can be found at: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/psych_bull.html
Also consult recent issues of Psychological Bulletin, Annual
Review of Psychology, and similar journals for examples of review papers.
1.
Complete a one-page topical proposal that describes the
research question(s) to be addressed in the review paper (due 10/7/04; 5
points).
2.
Complete a detailed outline for the review paper, including
references (due 11/11/04; 5 points).
The review paper is due no later than Monday 12/03/04
at 4 p.m. (50 points).
Grant Proposal (60 points)
Grant-writing is a core skill for
health psychologists. We believe it is
important for all students to have some experience writing a grant proposal,
and doing so in class will allow you to obtain systematic feedback prior to a
“real” submission.
If you choose to write the grant
proposal during fall semester, the content should focus heavily on assessment
issues. That is, although the study may
not be designed specifically around evaluating or developing an assessment
methodology or technique, the measurement component should be elaborated in
detail. Each component of measurement
must be described and justified by theory or empirical studies. The proposal should be a maximum of 30
double-spaced pages (not single-spaced like actual NIH grants), plus
references. Proposals should request
funding for no longer than 4 years, and they can be shorter.
The proposal can be a first draft
of the dissertation proposal, but this is not a requirement. In writing the proposal, you should use the
NIH forms that can be obtained from their website.
Proposals should have these
sections:
1.
Abstract. Write this
last, provides a brief summary of the study, specific aims and methods.
2.
Budget. This does
not have to be detailed, but should include personnel (make rough estimates of
how many research assistants will be needed to implement the study),
consultants, equipment, materials, office supplies, travel, and other expenses
including participant incentives. You
can estimate the amounts – it is not necessary to spend substantial time
researching costs.
3.
Biosketch. Include
your biosketch in the format required by NIH.
4.
Specific Aims. This
section should be one page or less, and should consist of brief, clear
statements of aims or hypotheses. It is
often useful to define primary, secondary, and possibly tertiary aims.
5.
Background and Significance. Review the literature supporting the proposed study. For the present purposes, the review will be
longer than is typical in NIH grants (10-15 pages). In addition, as noted above, you will develop the rationale
behind the chosen measurement approaches in detail.
6.
Preliminary Studies.
This section describes prior research performed by you or your lab that
supports the proposed study or demonstrates skills relevant to the proposed
research. For the purposes of this assignment, you may omit this section or
write something very brief.
7.
Design and Methodology (suggested outline)
a.
Study Design and Participants. Clearly define the experimental design. Include plans for sample recruitment and maintenance. 2-3 pages should be sufficient.
b.
Timeline. Include a
table or figure with the timeline for the entire study.
c.
Pilot Studies, if any, should be described briefly. These can include quantitative and
qualitative studies.
d.
Procedures. Describe
all components and provide references to support each component. Including a
model as a framework for the proposed research is often helpful.
e.
Measurement Methods.
Describe and justify your primary and secondary predictor and outcome
measures. Include measures of any
hypothesized mediating and moderating variables. Summarize the reliability and validity of selected measures. Where appropriate, present data concerning
alternative measurement approaches, emphasizing why you chose specific measures
over these. Alternatively, you can
propose to develop your own measures, which will require a pilot study. Include a description of the schedule of
measures and the procedures for performing measurements. Include a description of any training necessary
for implementing measures, maintaining quality control, and assessing
reliability as appropriate.
f.
Data Management and Analysis. Justify your sample size with a power analysis. If possible, use previous studies to
estimate the effect size. Provide a
summary of the statistical analyses you will use.
g.
Project Management.
Write a paragraph on how the study will be managed. You can include an organizational chart.
h.
Literature Cited.
3.
Complete a one-page topical proposal that describes the
research question(s) to be addressed in your grant (due 10/7/04; 5 points).
4.
Complete a detailed outline of your proposal, including
references (due 11/11/04; 5 points).
The grant proposal is due no later than Monday
12/03/04 at 4 p.m. (50 points).
Class Presentation (20 Points)
Students will present the findings of their review paper, or will overview the rationale and design for the research proposed in their grant. The presentation should be prepared as if for a scientific conference, but will be longer than is typical (30 minutes with 15 minutes for discussion), and will be followed by a class discussion/question period. Each presentation must include a visual component (i.e., PowerPoint slides) and may include handouts. Students will receive written feedback concerning the content and style of their presentation, in terms of strengths as well as areas for improvement.
Article Review/Recent Measurement Studies (10
Points)
Students will identify a recent study of a measurement
method or issue that is relevant to the week’s topic and will present a summary
and critical evaluation of the research.
The selected study should be published within the past five years, and
preferably will evaluate a measure or issue related to Behavioral
Medicine/Health Psychology.
1. Students
will give a 5-10 minute presentation concerning the content of the article they
have chosen to review. The initial part
of the presentation should briefly describe the main points of the rationale,
methods, and findings. The presentation
should end with a summary of the study’s strengths and weaknesses, suggestions
for improving the study, and ideas for future studies to advance science in
this area. (5 points).
2. Students
will develop a written summary of their critique, structured as a formal
article review. The review should be 1-2 pages
in length (single spaced, or 2-4 pages double spaced). The
review should contain: 1) Broad observations about the manuscript and its
strengths and weaknesses; 2) Specific comments, explicating problems or
concerns, suggesting strategies for remediation, if possible, and noting need
for further explanation or clarification; 3) Summary impressions of the
paper. When writing a review, tone is
important, and the goal is convey respect while offering constructive
suggestions. The first paragraph should summarize the manuscript and
express appreciation for the research area, the efforts of the author, or some
aspect of the study or manuscript that can be viewed positively. You may
want to ask your mentors for examples of reviews they have completed. Also, consult any guidelines provided by the
editor for the particular journal you have chosen.
Discussion Points (10 Points)
To encourage reading and active discussion, students will be asked to turn in two written discussion points or questions pertinent to the week’s topical area for each of ten classes (students may choose the ten). Discussion points should arise out of the readings and should represent: 1) material the student would like the presenter to address and/or 2) material that would be useful for group discussion. One point will be deducted for each missed discussion point day (i.e., students who turn in points for 9 classes will receive 4 points, etc.). Students are asked to raise their discussion points during or following the day’s presentation and to turn in the points at the end of class.
Final grades will be calculated as follows:
Total Points Letter
Grade SDSU
GPA
95 - 100 A
4.0
90 - 94 A
- 3.7
85 - 89 B+ 3.3
80 - 84 B 3.0
75 - 79 B- 2.7
Topics and
Speakers for
Behavioral
Medicine Seminar: Assessment Issues
Fall, 2004
Date Speaker;
Topic; Location
09/02/04 Linda Gallo; Introduction to Course
and Topic
09/09/04 Linda Gallo; Obesity and Eating
Disorders; 6363 Alvarado Ct 2nd Floor Conference Room B
09/16/04 Jim Sallis, Ph.D. (JDP Faculty) and
Jeanne Nichols, Ph.D. (Director, Adult Health Fitness Center Department of
Exercise and Nutritional Sciences); Physical Activity and Fitness; 9245 Sky
Park
09/23/04 Matthew Allison, M.D., MPH (Assistant
Clinical Professor, Cardiology, UCSD); Cardiovascular Disease Risk; 6363
Alvarado Ct 2nd Floor Conference Room B
9/30/04 Tom
Patterson, Ph.D. (JDP Faculty; Professor, UCSD Psychiatry); HIV and Sexual Risk
Behaviors; 6363 Alvarado Ct 2nd Floor Conference Room B
10/07/04 Laura Bogart, Ph.D. (Social/Behavioral
Scientist; RAND Corporation); Methodological Issues in the Assessment of
Adherence/Career Opportunities at RAND Corporation; 6363 Alvarado Ct 2nd Floor
Conference Room B
10/14/04 Elizabeth Klonoff, Ph.D.; Smoking and Tobacco Use; 6363 Alvarado Court Second Floor Conference Room B
10/21/04 Cheryl Rock, Ph.D., R.D. (Professor, Family and Preventive Medicine); Nutrition and Dietary Behaviors; 8950 Villa La Jolla, Suite C105
10/28/04 Sandra Brown, Ph.D. (JDP Faculty; Professor, UCSD Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry); Alcohol and Drug Use; VAMC, Room 2011
11/04/04 Paul Mills, Ph.D. (JDP Faculty, Professor in
Residence, UCSD Department of Psychiatry) and Rick Nelesen, Ph.D.
(Research Associate, UCSD); Psychophysiology Assessment; UCSD Medical Center
CTF-Bldg A #404
11/11/04 Tom Rutledge, Ph.D. (JDP Faculty; Assistant Professor, UCSD Department of Psychiatry); Assessment Issues in Chronic Pain, VAMC (TBA)
11/18/04 Linda Gallo; Stress and Social Relationships; 6363 Alvarado Court Second Floor Conference Room B
11/25/04 Thanksgiving
Holiday, no class
12/02/04 Student
Presentations
12/09/04 Student
Presentations
9/2/04: Linda Gallo; Introduction to Course and topic
1.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (November,
2000). Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. Understanding and Improving Health
(pp. 1-62). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
2.
Mokdad, A.H., Marks, J.S., Stroup, D.F., & Gerberding,
J.L. (2004) Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA, 29 1238-1245
3.
Smith, T.W., Kendall, P.C., & Keefe, F.J. (2002).
Behavioral medicine and clinical health psychology: Introduction to the special
issue, a view from the decade of behavior. Journal of Consulting &
Clinical Psychology, 70, 459-462. [The entire issue is recommended – the
introductory paper will provide an overview and allow you to select articles
most relevant to your own research and clinical interests].
09/09/04: Linda Gallo; Obesity and Eating Disorders
1.
Agras, W.S. The big picture. (1995). In: David B. Allison
(Ed). Handbook of assessment
methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theory, and research. (pp. 561-579). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
2.
Goodpaster, B.H. (2002). Measuring body fat distribution and content in humans. Current Opinion in Clinical
Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 5, 481-487.
3.
Jacobi, C., Hayward, C., de Zwaan, M., Kraemer, H.C., &
Agras, W.S. (2004). Coming to terms with risk factors for eating disorders:
application of risk terminology and suggestions for a general taxonomy. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 19-65.
[Note: Feel free to skim this long
article if eating disorders are not a primary interest]
4. Weiss, R.,
Dziura, J., Burgert, T.S., Tamborlane, W.V., Taksali, S.E., Yeckel, C.W.,
Allen, K., Lopes, M., Savoye, M., Morrison, J., Sherwin, R.S., & Caprio, S.
(2004). Obesity and the metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents. New
England Journal of Medicine, 350, 2362-74
5. Zhang, Q.,
& Wang, Y. (2004). Socioeconomic inequality of obesity in the United
States: do gender, age, and ethnicity matter? Social Science & Medicine,
58, 1171-1180.
9/16/04: Jim Sallis and Jeanne Nichols; Physical Activity
and Fitness
1.
Rikli, R.E., & Jones, C.J. (1999). Development and
validation of a functional fitness test for community residing lder adults. Journal
of Aging and Physical Activity, 7, 129-161.
2.
Sallis, J.F., and Saelens, B.E. (2000).
Assessment of physical activity by self-report: Status, limitations, and
future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71,
S1-S14.
3.
Welk, G.J. (2002). Use of accelerometry-based
activity monitors to assess physical activity. In G.J. Welk (Ed.), Physical
activity assessments for health-related research (pp. 125-142). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
09/23/04: Matthew Allison; Cardiovascular Disease Risk
1.
Chobanian, A.V., Bakris, G.L., Black, H.R., et al. (2003).
Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension, 42,
1206-1252.
2.
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High
Blood Cholesterol in Adults. (2001). Executive Summary of The Third Report of
The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection,
Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment
Panel III). JAMA, 285, 2486-2497.
3.
Taylor AJ. Merz CN. Udelson JE. (2003). 34th Bethesda
Conference: Executive summary—can atherosclerosis imaging techniques improve
the detection of patients at risk for ischemic heart disease? Journal of the
American College of Cardiology, 41, 1860-1862.
9/30/04: Tom Patterson; HIV and Sexual Risk Behaviors
1.
Johnson WD. Hedges LV. Ramirez G. Semaan S. Norman LR.
Sogolow E. Sweat MD. Diaz RM. (2002). HIV prevention research for men who have
sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndromes: JAIDS. 30 Suppl 1:S118-S129.
2.
Semaan S. Des Jarlais DC. Sogolow E. Johnson WD. Hedges LV.
Ramirez G. Flores SA. Norman L. Sweat MD. Needle R. (2002). A meta-analysis of
the effect of HIV prevention interventions on the sex behaviors of drug users
in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes:
JAIDS. 30 Suppl 1:S73-S93.
10/07/04: Laura Bogart; Methodological Issues in the
Assessment of Adherence/ Career Opportunities at RAND Corporation
1. DiMatteo,
M.R. (2004). Variations in patients' adherence to medical recommendations: a
quantitative review of 50 years of research. Medical Care, 42, 200-209.
2. Wagner,
G.W. (2002). Predictors of antiretroviral adherence as measured by self-report,
electronic monitoring, and medication diaries. AIDS Patient Care and STDs,
16, 599-608.
3. Chapter…
10/14/04: Elizabeth Klonoff; Smoking and Tobacco Use
1. Landrine,
H. & Klonoff, E.A. (2000). Racial discrimination and cigarette smoking
among Blacks: findings from two studies. Ethnicity & Disease, 10, 195-202.
2. Landrine,
H., Klonoff, E.A., Campbell, R., & Reina-Patton, A. (2000). Sociocultural
variables in youth access to tobacco: replication 5 years later. Preventive
Medicine, 30, 433-437.
3.
Klonoff EA. Fritz JM. Landrine H. Riddle RW. Tully-Payne L.
(1994). The problem and sociocultural context of single-cigarette sales. JAMA.
271, 618-620.
4.
Klonoff, E.A., & Landrine, H. (2001). Policies to reduce
involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: Prevalence, nature,
effects, and future directions. In: R.R. Watson and M. Witten, Environmental
Tobacco Smoke.
5.
Klonoff, E.A., & Landrine, H. (2004, In Press).
Predicting youth access to tobacco: The role of youth versus store clerk
behavior and ecological validity. Health Psychology, 23.
10/21/04: Cheryl Rock; Nutrition and Dietary Behaviors
From: Coulston, Rock and Monsen (Eds.) (2001). Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease. San Diego: Academic Press.
1. Chapter 1: Dietary Assessment Methodology, by Thompson and Subar.
2. Chapter 5: Analysis, Presentation, and Interpretation of Dietary Data, by Coward-McKenzie & Phillips.
3. Chapter 10: Biomarkers and Biological Indicators of Change, by Lampe & Rock.
10/28/04: Sandra Brown; Alcohol and Drug Use
1.
Cooney, N.L., Zweben, A., & Fleming, M.F. (1998).
Screening for Alcohol Problems and At-Risk Drinking in Health Care
Settings. In R.K. Hester and W.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of
Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives, Second Edition. pg.
45-60.
2.
Miller, W.R., Westerberg, V.S., & Waldron, H.B.
(1998). Evaluating Alcohol Problems in Adults and Adolescents. In R.K.
Hester and W.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches:
Effective Alternatives, Second Edition. pg. 61-88.
11/04/04: Paul Mills and Rick Nelesen; Psychophysiology
Assessment
1. Mills, P.J., Farag, N.H., Hong, S., Kennedy, B.P., Berry, C.C., & Ziegler, M.G. (2003). Immune cell CD62L and CD11a expression in response to a psychological stressor in human hypertension. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 17, 260-267.
2. Mills, P.J., & Dimsdale, J.E. (2004). Sleep apnea, a model for studying cytokines, sleep, and sleep disruption. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 18, 298-303.
3. Neleson, R.A., & Dimsdale, J.E. (2002). Use of radial arterial tonometric continuous blood pressure measurement in cardiovascular reactivity studies. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 7, 259-263.
4. Nelesen, R.A., & Ziegler, M.G. Techniques of adrenergic functional assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Nelesen, R.A., Yu, H., Ziegler, M.G., Mills, P.J., Clausen, J.L., & Dimsdale, J.E. (2001). Continuous positive airway pressure normalizes cardiac autonomic and hemodynamic responses to a laboratory stressor in Apneic patients. CHEST, 119, 1092-1101.
11/11/04: Tom Rutledge; Assessment Issues in Chronic Pain
1. McCracken,
L.M., & Turk, D.C. (2002). Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatment
for chronic pain. Spine, 2, 2564-2573
2. Dersh, J.,
Polatin, P.B., & Gatchel, R.J. (2002). Chronic pain and psychopathology:
Research findings and theoretical considerations. Psychosomatic Medicine,
64, 773-786.
3. Riggs,
R.L. (2001). Using your head to manage your chronic pain.
11/18/04: Linda Gallo; Stress and Social Relationships
1. Cohen, S.,
Kessler, R., & Underwood, L.G. (1998). Strategies for measuring stress in
studies of psychiatric and physical disorders. In S. Cohen, & R. Kessler
(Eds.). Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists, (pp. 3-26). New York: Oxford Press.
2.
Feldman, P.J., & Steptoe, A. (2004). How neighborhoods
and physical functioning are related: the roles of neighborhood socioeconomic
status, perceived neighborhood strain, and individual health risk factors. Annals
of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 91-99.
3.
Gallo, L.C., Troxel, W., Matthews, K.A., Kuller, L., &
Sutton-Tyrrell, K. (2003). Marital role occupancy and quality in middle aged
women: prediction of the levels and trajectories of cardiovascular risk
factors. Health Psychology, 22, 453-463.
4.
Kemeny, M.E. (2003). The psychobiology of stress. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 124-129.
5.
Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and
measurement. In: S. Cohen, L.G. Underwood, & B.H. Gottlieb (Eds.). Social
Support Measurement and Intervention, (pp. 29-52). New York: Oxford.