Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 1, 9, 10.

Science & Education LSU’s Dr. Zhang Helps Consulting Psychologists with Data Visualization

Louisiana State University Assistant Professor Dr. Don Zhang is taking on a decades old problem––how do psychologists meaningfully communicate their findings to others, so that the value of research is clear and used properly?

Dr. Zhang was highlighted by author Michael Litano in two recent issues of The Industrial Psychologist, published by the Society of Industrial- Organizational Psychologists. Litano interviewed Zhang and other experts for, “Lost in Translation: Visually Communicating Validity Evidence.” The aim was to better describe and understand the critical role data visualizing efforts have for psychologists, who must find meaningful ways to visually and verbally communicate complex issues like validity, to clients, customers, students, and others.

Don Zhang, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Louisiana State University, was interviewed for part one, and helped author part two of the “Lost in Translation” article.

Zhang’s current research focuses on data visualization, specifically communicating validity information to relevant stakeholders. His research involves the application of psychological principles to the workplace. He is also interested in the individual differences in risk taking propensity and the relations to life and work outcomes such as job performance, counter productivity, and safety compliance. His work has been published in various international journals and books.

In “Lost in Translation,” Litano and experts point to the meaning of reliability and validity, and review the different types.

“In psychology, we are trying to measure more elusive characteristics such as personality, interests, et cetera, and we have to settle for a less precise scale than the bathroom scale,” Dr. Zhang said in the article. “In those situations, we use surveys or expert judges to measure characteristics that we cannot see. But our measurement instruments function very similarly. Like a bathroom scale, we want our psychological instrument to produce consistent results every time, which is a lot more difficult. Our job is to create the most accurate scale as possible even though we are trying to measure more elusive things.”

Regarding types of validity, Dr. Zhang said, “Content-related validity answers the question: ‘Is the content of my test relevant to the construct we are trying to measure?’” and used an NFL example, showing that all tests used need to be relevant to the construct of athletic ability.

“The 40-yard dash would be a better test than a hot dog eating contest because, in theory, speed is one aspect of athletic ability, and hot-dog eating is not. You also need to make sure all aspects of athleticism are measured: If you only use the bench press but do not ask the players to run, you are missing out on important aspects of a person’s athletic ability. […] Psychological measures work the same way. If a survey is designed to measure conscientiousness, it needs to have all the items related to the concept of conscientiousness.”

“Construct validity is the degree to which the instrument is measuring the construct it intends to measure,” he said. “It’s easy to look at the numbers on a bathroom scale and be confident that it is your weight. But if you get a 4.5 on a conscientiousness test, how can we be sure that the score reflects your conscientiousness and not something else?”

Do the test results predict behaviors in the real world? “This is called criterion validity,” Dr. Zhang said. “…we want to know is if a particular characteristic is related to the outcome of interest. Does athletic ability relate to success in the NFL? If they have nothing to do with each other, then we know that athletic ability is not important criteria when predicting NFL success.”

In part two of “Lost in Translation,” authors try and answer the question. “How does one effectively communicate validity evidence using only visualization?”

The authors noted the difficulty they had obtaining good examples of validity visualization from volunteer psychologists. Most were too academic and technical, confusing, or poor examples of validity.

For the second article Dr. Zhang takes on the challenge, using an example of how the information in a typical scatterplot is understood and then he compares the same data being explained in an expectancy table.

“The plot … [see Figure I] illustrates the relationship between ACT and college GPA, which has a validity of r = .30: not particularly impressive,” he wrote. “At a glance, the relationship depicted in the scatter plot appears equally unconvincing. Yet, scatter plots are the primary method for visualizing linear relationships.”

“Alternatively, one can use an expectancy chart […]. Expectancy charts communicates the relationship between two variables (e.g., ACT score and GPA) by presenting the proportion of the sample with score above a cut-off criterion (e.g., GPA above 3.5) at a given score interval on the predictor (e.g., ACT score between 25 to 27).”

“Believe it or not, the expectancy chart … [Figure 2] is generated with the same data as the scatter plot. Based on the expectancy chart, one can easily see the predictive efficiency of the ACT.”

“Students in the top quintile of ACT have approximately 70% chance making the Dean’s List (GPA above 3.5) at most universities, whereas students in the bottom quinile of ACT have a less than 25% chance (25% takes on a whole new meaning in this context).”

Dr. Zhang says that despite the benefits of these types of displays for communicating about validity, there are no accessible tools available.

So, he’s developed his own.

“In order to facilitate the calculation of nontraditional effect size displays, I’ve created a free-to-use web application that allows scholars and practitioners to easily generate and visualize a variety of nontraditional effect sizes such as expectancy charts, CLES, and binomial effect size displays with their own data,” Zhang says.

The site is Shiny Alternative Effect Size Calculator or ShinyAESC, found at https://dczhang.shinyapps.io/ expectancyApp/).

Don Zhang, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Louisiana State University, received his PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Bowling Green State University.

He works closely with organizations to create evidence-based plans and deliver solutions that are tailored to their unique needs. He can be reached at zhang1@lsu.edu (Twitter: @zdon89). His lab web page is https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/ zhanglab/

Dr. Don Zhang, LSU Assistant Professor, at the IO psychology track of the Louisiana Psychological Association in 2017. Dr. Zhang is helping psychologists find ways to better describe their validity results with data visualization methods. Figure I. Dr. Zhang’s example of traditional scatterplot, and a .30 correlation between ACT scores and GPA. “Not particularly impressive,” he points out in the TIP article. Figure II. Same data placed in expectancy chart. Clients can much more easily see the students in the top quintile of ACT have 70% chance of making Dean’s List while those In the bottom quintile have less than a 25% chance. (Charts courtesy of Dr. Zhang.)

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 2.

Prosecutors by Times publisher, J. Nelson

I reported on some of the facts of what happened to Beverly Stubblefield in the March issue (Psychology Times, Vol 9, No 3). Her story adds to my concerns about today’s “prosecutors” and if we have slipped off into a social dynamic that is dangerously cooking under the surface of our society.

I present below some of my opinions about what happened to Beverly (and the others) noting that I have no legal training at all. I do have, however, a pocket copy of the Constitution. Several copies as a matter of fact.

First, by way of introduction, I will say that I am a bit taken back by the lack of critical-thinking displayed in the trial transcripts I reviewed. This might be because by the time of the trial, there was no more “investigation,” but only “prosecution,” and the motivated reasoning overwhelmed coherent themes emerging that could then organize the facts or test them by logical analysis.

Of central importance to this was the charge of “conspiracy,” which is used for drug lords, terrorists and organized crime bosses. This charge empowers the government to “cut the legs out from under the defendants,” and they did this to Beverly by seizing her house, bank accounts, retirement and cash. She had to plead guilty because she had no way of defending herself. Neither did the others.

The government framed and primed this idea of big-time crooks, right from the beginning. The first thing any of us heard was a sensationalized press release: “… $25.2 Million Fraud Scheme…” and “…a large-scale Medicare Fraud takedown…” The names of the attorneys involved were prominent in the news release and they congratulated their team, called the “ Medicare Fraud Strike Force.”

I know that the government’s priming and framing worked, because it worked on me. I immediately assumed guilt because the news release seemed to say so. I even avoided reporting on it, because I believed what I read. Shame on me.

The Hesson companies were not “large-scale” anything. The company was by standard measures, a “small business” with yearly revenues more around $2.8M and an even less impressive profit considering the 20 or 30 employees, whose payroll could cost 80% of revenues.

The prosecution seemed to hang the defendants on the total number of “units” of testing being billed, and a few of what Dr. Ralph Dreger called, “the extraordinary case of one,” where some elderly person had been evaluated a few days before they passed away or someone too cognitively impaired to complete a test, was evaluated.

The prosecutors made hay with these examples, anchoring the concepts of fraudulent work––some type of nest of 20+ greedy, psychopathic psychologists participating in overt, organized crime. This is an extremely low probability event, low enough to be virtually impossible, sort of like pigs flying.

I do think that Beverly’s Constitutional rights were violated. I have no legal training but the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th protects due process, the 6th ensures Miranda, and the 8th prohibits excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.

Beverly was interviewed by the FBI without being informed that she was being charged or investigated. She was not read her Miranda rights. She was never informed that she had been indicted. She learned of it when a patient told her they’d read about her in the newspaper.

In the trial transcripts there were many charts and facts presented that defendants did not understand or did not know where the data came from. There were also charts that were shown to be calculated wrong or data displayed incorrectly.

Her punishment having to do with “restitution” seems excessive and cruel. She made $89K for five years. Her restitution comes to $1,733,378 more than she ever received. In fact, all the defendants’ restitution was set at more than was billed, so they are even “paying back” what Medicare didn’t pay. How is that reasonable?

How is it that she and the other defendants got a fair trial? The prosecutors were motivated to create the charge of “conspiracy” because it extends their powers and they are rewarded with the seized resources. With the “conspiracy” charge, the psychologists never had a chance at a defense. Also, I saw in the transcripts what I consider evidence of the Stockholm syndrome in John Teal and to a lesser extent Beverly––understandable since their lives depended on it. Both have been destroyed professionally and financially.

It is ridiculous to think that Beverly got together and “conspired” with other psychologists to break the law. If these psychologists were “conspiring” they were the worse criminals ever, because their billing practices waved red flags right in the face of Medicare. I didn’t see any evidence that anyone tried to hide anything. Personally, I believe that Rodney Hesson probably believed he was being a good entrepreneur, providing an innovative, low-cost service, and meeting an important need. Apparently the nursing homes thought so.

Despite some screwball billing being submitted to Medicare (you have to ask who had the professional death wish) I wasn’t at all persuaded that “not medically necessary” meant fraudulent, which was part of prosecution’s case. Especially given these services were ordered by physicians.

When my dad was in his last years I took him to a physical therapist who after six visits termed him to “not be improving” so that he did not qualify for treatment. I told the therapist that we’d just pay ourselves, but apparently that was not allowed, either. When my father was depressed and causing trouble, they put him on Geodon and turned him into a brittle diabetic, and there was never any comprehensive evaluation. I would have appreciated one, a great deal.

Overall, I’m saying the same as Judge Caldwell said––I don’t care what Beverly did or didn’t do, she deserved a Constitutionally valid process, fair trial and if found guilty, reasonable punishment.

[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, organizational consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other various positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertizing. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 3.

Nancy Arnold, the Administrative Coordinator for Graduate Studies at LSU Psychology strikes again. She corrected Dr. Tucker’s’ title as Assistant Professor, page one. Thank you Ms. Arnold, once more. Send your corrections to: psychologytimes@drjulienelson.com

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 4.

SB 374 by Senator Regina Barrow is scheduled to be heard in Senate Judiciary B this week and would require the Department Public Safety and Corrections to provide for incarcerated women in a manner that address their particular needs. These would include: Health screening and projected health care needs; Plan of care for a child or children; Wellness education program; Pregnancy; Counseling and support services; Geriatric care; Mental health screening; and Mental health services.

The proposed law expresses the legislative intent and desire that services offered to state and private correctional institutions and facilities should address the unique issues of incarcerated women based upon female specific health issues, social and psychological needs, family commitments, and issues surrounding children.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 4.

Senate Resolution 46, authored by Senator Jonathan Perry, requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to review state laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures relative to mental health evaluations used in child custody and visitation proceedings. The measure is pending for Senate Judiciary A and scheduled for this week, April 3.

The measure notes that Louisiana has two statutes, R.S. 9:331 and 9:355.15, that govern mental health evaluations in child custody and visitation proceedings, and these were enacted in 1993 and 1997.

No modifications or updates have been made since that time, “on conducting mental health evaluations in child custody and visitation proceedings, including the expertise of the mental health professional conducting the evaluation…” and according to reported decisions, mental health evaluations have increased at least ten-fold since the 1990s, and more recently have doubled in the last eight years.

Included in the topics for review requested are selection of a particular professional to conduct the evaluation, qualifications of the professional to conduct the evaluation, and communications between counsel and the professional conducting the evaluation. Specifically the measure notes, “… there is confusion as to whether R.S. 9:331 or Code of Civil Procedure Arts. 1464, 1465, and 1465.1, relating to experts, apply in a child custody and visitation proceeding,” and “there is further confusion as to whether, when, and how Code of Evidence Arts. 702 through 706 regarding experts and 801 through 804 regarding hearsay apply in child custody and visitation proceedings when a mental health evaluation is ordered.”

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 5.

AG Seeks to Ramp Up Medicaid Fraud Prosecutions

In a March 29 press release the Attorney General, Jeff Landry, asked congress to expand the authority of Medicaid Fraud Control Units to “be able to go after Medicaid patient abuse in non- institutional settings.”

The AG joined 48 other state Attorneys General in a letter supporting new legislation to expand the Units, U.S. House Resolution 3891, “a proposal to permit MFCU/s to detect, investigate, and prosecute Medicaid patient abuse.”

According to the release, Landry said, “Those involved in Medicaid welfare fraud, either recipient fraud or provider fraud, must be brought to justice.”

“We commend this bipartisan Resolution that will assist us in ramping up our efforts to protect Louisiana citizens.”

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 6.

APA Council Reps Votes to Accredit Masters Programs

On March 9 at a meeting of the Council of Representatives for the American Psychological Association, held in Washington DC, delegates passed a motion for the association to seek accreditation of master’s level programs in psychology.

Current Representative for the Louisiana area, Dr. Lucinda DeGrange told members of the Louisiana Psychological Association that it was a “historic motion.”

The vote, representatives from each state and each Division, endorsed the move by a 92 percent to 6.6 percent margin.

Accreditation of educational programs may be a first step in credentialing of master’s level providers, a topic researched by the Louisiana Psychological Association. Last year the state psychology board reviewed the topic with public attendees, at its Long Range meeting in the late fall, 2017.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 8.

Psychologists and Psychological Scientists Present at Southeastern Psychological Association in Charleston, SC

A group of psychological scientists, practitioners, professors and students exhibited their research at the 64th Annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, held March 6–9 in Charleston, South Carolina.

Drs. Michelle Moore, Kristin Callahan, and Jennifer Hughes from LSU Health Sciences Center and Stacy Kurtz, Adelphi University, presented, “Effective and Supportive Clinical Supervision.

In this Continuing Education workshop, the presenters discussed that supervision is an opportunity for personal and professional growth, and for many years, was learned through on the job training.

Effective supervisors establish a safe, supportive relationship with a trainee. The purpose of this workshop was to provide an overview of the models of clinical supervision and to discuss recent changes to course requirements and training expectations.

Researchers from across the state presented poster presentations at SEPA, these included, “The After-effects of Intentions: Spontaneous Retrieval, Commission Errors, and Cost,” presented by Jason L. Hicks, Samantha N. Spitler, & Megan H. Papesh, Louisiana State University.

Daniella Cash, Samantha Knotts, Bryanna Jones, Hailey Allo, Alora Cleere, Niels Dickson, Louisiana State University, Deah Quinlivan, Florida Southern College, & Sean Lane, Louisiana State University, presented, “Evaluating Pre-Trial Publicity for Both Victim and Defendant on Verdicts.”

“The Unrecognized Benefits of Attention Allocation in Prospective Memory,” was presented by Marissa Lass, Juan Guevara Pinto, & Megan Papesh, Louisiana State University.

“TMI: Justifications Detract from Expressions of Confidence,” was presented by Daniella Cash, Niels Dickson, Alora Cleere, Hailey Allo, Bryanna Jones, Samantha Knotts, & Sean Lane, Louisiana State University

Laura Gomez, Ana N. Longo Colon, & Erin Dupuis (Faculty Sponsor), Loyola University New Orleans, presented, “Effect of Political Statements on Attitudes and Behavior Toward Women.” “Retirement Goal Self- Concordance and Subjective Well- Being,” was presented by Charles Nichols, Loyola University New Orleans. And research titled, “Examining Lay Perceptions of Intergroup Stressors and Well-Being,” was presented by Lisa Molix, Tulane University, & Charles Nichols, Loyola University New Orleans.

Dr. Michelle Moore (L), seen above at a previous conference with Toni Tyson, presented at SEPA in South Carolina, along with colleagues Kristin Callahan and Jennifer Hughes from LSU Health Sciences Center.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 8.

Senator White’s measure was reported favorably out of the Committee on Judiciary C and is pending Senate vote.

The present law provides that when a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned in a capital case, the court is to commit the defendant to a proper state mental institution or to a private mental institution approved by the court for custody, care, and treatment. Present law provides that when the superintendent of a mental institution is of the opinion that a person committed pursuant to present law can be discharged or can be released on probation, without danger to others or to himself, he is to recommend the discharge or release of the person in a report to a review panel comprised of the person's treating physician, the clinical director of the facility to which the person is committed, and a physician or psychologist who served on the sanity commission that recommended commitment of the person. Present law further provides that after review the panel is to make a recommendation to the court.

Proposed law retains present law and adds that a recommendation that the person be discharged or released on probation requires a unanimous vote of the panel. Proposed law further provides that the panel must render specific findings of fact in support of its recommendation. Proposed law makes present law applicable to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity of the enumerated present law crimes.

Proposed law retains present law and adds that the 10- year "cleansing period" contained in present law applies to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity of the enumerated present law crimes.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 13.

Dr. Joseph Tramontana was conferred Fellowship status at the 60th annual convention of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) in Orlando, Florida, in March. Dr. Tramontana has served as Secretary of ASCH, President of the Louisiana Psychological Association, President of the New Orleans Society of Clinical Hypnosis, on the Board of Directors of Southern Pain Society. He has provided numerous ASCH workshops and at the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, authored two books on hypnosis, one on Addictions and one on Sports Hypnosis, as well as authored peer reviewed journal articles on hypnotically augmented psychotherapy. Dr. Tramontana will present “Hypnotically Enhanced Psychotherapy” at the International Society for Hypnosis in Montreal in August, 2018, and a two- day workshop on Hypnotically Enhanced Addictions Treatment for the Canadian Hypnosis Society in Banff, Canada in May 2019.

Pictured Left: Dr. Tramontana with daughter Jody Hutchinson, LCSW, at the banquet for the Fellowship status award of the ASCH. Ms. Hutchinson has a social work practice in Lafayette and is studying hypnosis and working toward certification. She is very proud of her dad, she told Dr. Tramontana. (Courtesy photo.)

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / April 2018

Originally published: April 2018. Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 16.

Calendar Mindfulness Workshop April 7

Dr. John Pickering announced the Annual Mindfulness day will be held Saturday, April 7, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm at the Tam Bao Meditation Hall, in Baton Rouge.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / March 2018

Originally published: March 2018. Volume 9, No. 3. Source pages: 12, 13.

What’s Recommended?

2nd Edition Guilford, 2015 Edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld Steven Jay Lynn Jeffrey M. Lohr

In Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Scott Lilienfeld and his colleagues have put together a set of ideas and facts for understanding what are science-based methods in clinical psychology and what are not. This edited text lays out the good and the bad for us, and also helps to boil down the reasons why we clinicians can be so confused about what is evidence-based and what is folklore, belief, or imagination when it comes to clinical psychology.

Science and Pseudoscience has something for everyone to feel bad about—readers will find at least one or two of their treasured theories or methods included somewhere in a chapter’s section on “Unproven or Controversial” descriptions, or embedded in the discussion of critical thinking using the template of science.

The straightforward benefit for the reader, especially for those who have been away from their scientific training or approach, is this––a bolstering of scientific and logical thinking and practice. Reminders of where we need to double-check ourselves, where we need to apply stronger reasoning and tighten it all down. How to shore up our pursuit of scientific truth.

Included are reviews on the Rorschach, projective drawings, the Myers-Briggs, the diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder, New Age Therapies, memory recovery techniques, herbal treatments, Alcoholics Anonymous, as examples. Some well-known names are included in the contributors, especially Irving Kirsch and Elizabeth Loftus.

The work is organized in five parts, covering Part I: Controversies in Assessment and Diagnosis, Part II: Overarching Controversies in Psychological Treatment; Part III: Controversies in the Treatment of Adult Disorders; Part IV: Controversies in the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Disorders.

This second edition is well organized and takes the reader through the steps of honest assessment of the field, with chapters that point out what we’re doing wrong but also chapters that show us why. Among the many strong sections, authors provide an excellent overview of how to understand the types of research information for assessing evidence––the introductory chapter for Part II, “The Science of Psychotherapy: Developing, Testing, and Promoting Evidence-Based Treatments.”

Many readers might also find a particular value in the chapter on self-help therapy and the authors’ “Guide for Developing, Selecting, or Evaluating a Self-Help Program: Questions to Ask,” which struck me as very useful.

The chapter on stress and trauma sets out the distinctions between evidence and science–based treatments, and critical reviews of EMDR and critical incident stress debriefing, then moving into the solid treatments like prolonged exposure.

A pull-no-punches Forward by Carol Tavris should not be missed. She describes a clueless clinician testifying in court, who was unaware of the reliability and validity weaknesses in her tests, knew nothing about testing clinical assumptions, nothing about confirmation bias, nothing about error rates, and so on. “In short, Dr. M managed to get a PhD in clinical psychology without having acquired a core understanding of the basic principles of scientific thinking.”

Lilienfeld has been beating this drum for a while. He is one of the leading professional voices in helping to straighten out scientific clinical psychology and he has assembled an impressive group of contributors to walk the reader through key areas of practice, outlining the science and pseudoscience.

A growing minority of clinicians are basing their work in therapy and assessment on subjective intuition, Lilienfeld says, rather than research evidence and this results in an ever increasing scientist-practitioner gap. And, he believes an increasing number are skeptical even for the need of evidence-based practice.

Lilienfeld quotes one of his mentors, Paul Meehl, on the topic, “It is absurd, as well as arrogant, to pretend that acquiring a Ph.D. somehow immunizes me from the errors of sampling, perception, recording, retention, retrieval, and inference to which the human mind is subject.”

The passion of the true scientist is to not be fooled or to fool anyone else, Meehl says, following Bertrand Russell. The true scientist is to ask “What do you mean?” and “How do you know?” He said, “I see the disturbing signs that this is happening and I predict that, if we do not clean up our clinical act and provide our students with role models of scientific thinking, outsiders will do it for us.”

Science and Pseudoscience is a commendable effort to help with that goal. It can supply a check to one’s metacognitive approach, to help psychologists accurately evaluate what they are doing and why, and to apply the tools of science to their methods, and to help them think about how they are thinking. You might not come away with a single change (although I doubt it) but you will come away with a renewed awareness to being a real psychologist.

Dr. Lilienfeld will be delivering the keynote address at the Louisiana Psychological Association in May.

TABLE of CONTENTS

1. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Initial Thoughts, Reflections, and Considerations, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, & Jeffrey M. Lohr

I. Controversies in Assessment and Diagnosis

2. Understanding Why Some Clinicians Use Pseudoscientific Methods: Findings from Research on Clinical Judgment, Howard N. Garb & Patricia A. Boyle

3. Controversial and Questionable Assessment Techniques, John Hunsley, Catherine M. Lee, James M. Wood, & Whitney Taylor

4. The Science and Pseudoscience of Expert Testimony, Joseph T. McCann, Steven Jay Lynn, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Kelley L. Shindler, & Tammy R. Hammond

5. Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Contemporary Scientific Perspective, Scott O. Lilienfeld & Steven Jay Lynn

II. Overarching Controversies in Psychological Treatment

6. The Science of Psychotherapy: Developing, Testing, and Promoting Evidence-Based Treatments, Brandon A. Gaudiano, Kristy L. Dalrymple, Lauren M. Weinstock, & Jeffrey M. Lohr

7. New Age and Related Novel Unsupported Therapies in Mental Health Practice, Monica Pignotti & Bruce A. Thyer

8. The Remembrance of Things Past: Problematic Memory Recovery Techniques in Psychotherapy, Steven Jay Lynn, Elisa Krackow, Elizabeth F. Loftus, Timothy G. Locke, & Scott O. Lilienfeld

9. Self-Help Therapy: Recent Developments in the Science and Business of Giving Psychology Away, Gerald M. Rosen, Russell E. Glasgow, Timothy E. Moore, & Manuel Barrera Jr.

III. Controversies in the Treatment of Adult Disorders 10. Science- and Non-Science-Based Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders, Jeffrey M. Lohr, Richard Gist, Brett Deacon, Grant J. Devilly, & Tracey Varker

11. Controversial Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorders, James MacKillop & Joshua Gray

12. Herbal Treatments and Antidepressant Medication: Similar Data, Divergent Conclusions, Harald Walach & Irving Kirsch

IV. Controversies in the Treatment of Child and Adolescent Disorders

13. Empirically Supported, Promising, and Unsupported Treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Daniel A. Waschbusch & James G. Waxmonsky

14. The Status of Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Weak Relationship of Science to Interventions, Raymond G. Romanczyk, Laura B. Turner, Melina Sevlever, & Jennifer M. Gillis

15. Attachment Therapy, Jean Mercer

16. Antisocial Behavior of Children and Adolescents: Harmful Treatments, Effective Interventions, and Novel Strategies, Anthony Petrosino, Pamela MacDougall, Meghan E. Hollis-Peel, Trevor A. Fronius, & Sarah Guckenberg

Conclusions and Future Directions

17. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Concluding Thoughts and Constructive Remedies, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, & Jeffrey M. Lohr

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / March 2018

Originally published: March 2018. Volume 9, No. 3. Source pages: 16.

APA Division of Psychoanalysis to Hold Meeting April 18–22 in New Orleans

The Division of Psychoanalysis, Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, will hold its spring meeting April 18–22 in New Orleans at the Intercontinental Hotel. The theme is Generations: Ghosts & Guardians. Louisiana clinical psychologist, Dr. Stephen Anen, who is this year’s conference co-chair, said, “We have tried to create a meeting that recognizes its location, something not always pursued with Spring Meetings in the past…” The theme, Generations: Ghosts & Guardians, calls on the quote from William Faulkner, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / March 2018

Originally published: March 2018. Volume 9, No. 3. Source pages: 1, 8.

Dr. Darlyne Nemeth and Dr. Traci Olivier, co- authors of Innovative Approaches to Individual and Community Resilience: From Theory to Practice, have had their work chosen for the PROSE Award, sponsored by the Professional and Scholarly Publishing (PSP) Division of the Association of American Publishers.

Innovative Approaches is published by Elsevier Academic Press, July 2017.

The PROSE Awards annually recognize the very best in professional and scholarly publishing by bringing attention to distinguished books, journals, and electronic content in 58 categories. The award is given to works that provide “groundbreaking contributions to the scholarly community, are rigorously researched, edited, and fact checked, and that meet standards of exceptional quality,” according to the PSP.

“This is an unexpected honor. The book was chosen in the category of Social Work, Nursing, and Allied Health,” said Nemeth, a clinical, medical, and neuropsychologist, has a broad-spectrum practice at The Neuropsychology Center of Louisiana (NCL).

“I do believe that the last PROSE Award was won by a book published by LSU Press in 2009. It is such an honor to have our book amongst so many distinguished writings.”

Nemeth is Co-Secretary General, World Congress for Psychotherapy and a Member of the Organizing Committee for the II Congress on Mental Health: Meeting the Need of the XXI Century––Mental Health and Education to take place in Moscow, Russia in October 2018.She is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and the World Counsel for Psychotherapy, served on the APA Council of Representatives.

Last year Traci Olivier, PsyD, presented at a national neuropsychology conference, “Systematic desensitization in a young adult with pelizaeus- merzbacher disease,” with colleagues. Dr. Olivier completed an internship at John's Hopkins/Kennedy Krieger and then a post-doc in Pediatric Neuropsych- ology at St. Jude's in Memphis. She previously was an assistant at NCLA.

Nemeth has co-authored Helping Your Angry Child, published by New Harbinger and has co-edited the Living in an Environmentally Traumatized World: Healing Ourselves and Our Planet,

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.

Article archive / March 2018

Originally published: March 2018. Volume 9, No. 3. Source pages: 1, 7.

Dr. Raymond Tucker, member of the Board of Directors, American Association of Suicidology and Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at Louisiana State University, helped answer questions at the recent screening of Suicide: The Ripple Effect.

The Baton Rouge Parents Magazine and Louisiana Film Society presented the world premier of the documentary at AMC Mall of Louisiana in Baton Rouge on the evening of February 23, followed by the Q&A with the filmmakers and an expert panel, according to the press release.

The film chronicles the story of Kevin Hines, who at age 19 attempted to take his life by jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge. Since then, Kevin has been on a mission to use his story to help others find recovery and stay alive, and has become the world’s most prominent suicide prevention speaker and advocate. The film also features some of the world’s leading suicide prevention experts and shines light on people who are using personal experiences with suicide to help others find the hope they need to stay alive.

The discussion was led by Kevin Hines, with the goal of enhancing suicide prevention efforts in the Baton Rouge area.

Panelists also included Greg Dicharry from SmileStyle Entertainment, Co-Director and Co- Producer of the film. Greg is a person in recovery who has led a national youth program for over 10 years.

Tonja Myles of Set Free, a US Veteran, radio host, ordained Minister and suicide attempt survivor also participated. Also Emma Benoit from Life Rejuvenated, a high school student and suicide attempt survivor answered questions.

The film will be officially released March13th, it has received strong endorsements from some of the world’s leading suicide prevention experts and organizations.

“Suicide: The Ripple Effect is a film that should be seen by anyone who has known despair, and anyone who is or has been close to someone in a suicidal crisis. This film will save lives.” Dr. John Draper, Director, National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

This event also serves as an opportunity to raise awareness and funds to support the Baton Rouge Crisis Intervention Center, whose mission is to provide prevention, intervention, and postvention services that provide support in times of crisis and reduce the impact of suicide, homicide, and violence.

This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.