Look at the short article on "abstract spin." At the end of the article, Brian Nosek, a researcher at the University of Virginia, argues that when "decisions are important, we should have higher expectations of readers to gather the information necessary to make good decisions... but we need to recognize pragmatic realities and develop better tools for readers to calibrate the confidence in the claims they see in brief, and provide cues prompting them to dig more deeply when the evidence is uncertain."

1. Do you agree with Nosek? Why or why not?

2. Based on what you learned in this class, what sorts of "cues" do you think people should use to "dig more deeply" into uncertain evidence? Put another way, what do you think is most important for readers to know about a study in order to evaluate its validity?

If you need, please see the article FYI

Abstract 'Spin' By Colleen Flaherty August 6, 2019

We've all been told not to judge a book by its cover. But we shouldn't be judging academic studies by their abstracts, either, according to anew paper in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. The study -- which found exaggerated claims in more than half of paper abstracts analyzed-- pertains to psychology and psychiatry research. It notes that"spin" is troublesome in those fields because it can impact clinical care decisions. But the authors say that this kind of exaggeration happens in other fields, too.

"Researchers are encouraged to conduct studies and report findings according to the highest ethical standards," the paper says, meaning "reporting results completely, in accordance with a protocol that outlines primary and secondary endpoints and prespecified subgroups and statistical analyses."

Yet authors are free to choose "how to report or interpret study results." And in an abstract, in particular, they may include "only the results they want to highlight or the conclusions they wish to draw."

In a word: spin.

Based on the idea that randomized controlled trials often inform how patients are treated, researchers used PubMed to find these kinds of studies. Their sample included those published from 2012-17 in well-regarded psychology and psychiatry journals: JAMA Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Psychological Medicine, British Journal of Psychiatryand Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Crucially, they analyzed only trials with results that were not statistically significant, and therefore were susceptible to spin -- 116 in all.

Evidence of spin included focusing only on statistically significant results, interpreting nonsignificant results or equivalent, using favorable rhetoric with regard to the nonsignificant results and declaring that an intervention was beneficial despite its statistical insignificance.

How often did articles' abstracts exaggerate the actual findings? More than half the time, or 56percent. Spin happened in 2percent of titles, 21percent of abstract results sections and 49percent of abstract conclusion sections. Fifteenpercent of abstracts had spin in both their results and conclusion sections.

Spin was more common in studies that compared a proposed treatment with typical care or placebo than in other kinds of studies. But industry funding was not associated with a greater likelihood of exaggeration, as just 10 of 65 spun trials had any of this kind of funding.

The study notes several limitations, including that looking forspin is inherently subjective work. But it says that it's important to guard against spin because researchers have an ethical obligation to honestly and clearly report their results and because spinning an abstract "may mislead physicians who are attempting to draw conclusions about a treatment for patients." Physicians read only an article abstract, versus the entire article, a majority of the time, it says, citingprior researchon the matter, and manyeditorial decisions are based on the abstract alone. Positive results are also more likely to be published in the first place, the paper notes, citing one study that found15percent of peer reviewers asked authors to spin their manuscripts.

What's to be done? Journaleditors may consider inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin, the article suggests.

Reporting guidelines also areused by several journals already to "ensure accurate and transparent reporting of clinical trial results, and the use of such guidelines improves trial reporting," the paper says. While the recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trialsonabstracts don't contain language discouraging spin, it says, "research reporting could be improved by discouraging spin in abstracts."

Lead author Sam Jellison, a medical student at Oklahoma State University, underscored that hispaper is not the firstto explore academic spin.Yet making more readers "aware of what spin is might be the first and largest step to take to fight this problem," he said. Jellison said that the existing literature suggests spin is not unique to psychology and psychiatry, and that those fields are actually "middle of the road" in terms of prevalence.

Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park whoblogsabout research,pointed out that reviewers already look at abstracts as part of their process, so in addition to the journaleditor,"reviewers should be able to see if the abstract is overstating the findings."

Still, a common way that sociologistsinflate research findings in generalis to mention thosethat are not statistically significant while downplayingthelack of significance,attributing it to a small sample or using phrases such as "does not reach statistical significance," he said, "as if the effect is just trying but can't quite get there."

Beyond questions of spin, Cohen said there is surely aproblem with "people only publishing, or journals only accepting, dramatic findings,"he said. So the greatest source of exaggeration is probably in what gets published at all, withnull findings or those that contradict existing positive results never seeing the light of day-- what Cohen noted has been called the "file drawer" problem.

While psychology isn't alone in the spin room, the fieldhas had its share of data integrity and public perception problems. A landmark studyin 2015, for example, found that most psychology studies don't yield reproducible results.

Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and lead author on the reproducibility study, said that spin involves two "connected problems," neither of which is easy to solve. Authors are "incentivized to present their findings in the best possible light for publishability and impact, and readers often don't read the paper."

As an author, he said, "even if I want to avoid spin," it's "entirely reasonable for me to try make the narrative of my title and abstract as engaging as possible so that people will read the paper." And at the same time, it's "very difficult to capture the complexity of almost any research finding in a phrase or short abstract." It's really a "skill" to present "complex findings briefly without losing accuracy."

As a reader, Nosek continued, "even if I want to make the best possible decisions based on research evidence, I don't have time to read and evaluate everything deeply."In some cases, he said, "I need to be able to trust that the information conveyed briefly is accurate and actionable."

Ultimately, when "decisions are important, we should have higher expectations of readers to gather the information necessary to make good decisions," he said. "But we need to recognize pragmatic realities and develop better tools for readers to calibrate the confidence in the claims they see in brief, and provide cues prompting them to dig more deeply when the evidence is uncertain."

It's also "in our collective interest to provide authors more training in communicating their findings in abstracts and press releases," Nosek added.

How Does Bullying Affect a Student's Academic Performance?

Children can be cruel and it is not uncommon for grade school students to come home in tears after someone called them a name on the bus ride home. Unfortunately, many parents do not understand the potentially damaging effects of bullying not only on a child's confidence and self-esteem but also on his academic performance.

Shocking Statistics About Bullying

According to StopBullying.gov, a website managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, nearly 50% of students in grades 4 through 12 experienced bullying within a given month and more than 70% of students admit to having seen bullying occur in their school. Verbal and social bullying are the two most common types, including things like name-calling, teasing, spreading rumors, stealing belongings, sexual comments and gestures, or physical violence. Physical bullying happens less often than social bullying and cyberbullying, though it is becoming increasingly prevalent, is still less common.

While many people assume that a little bit of bullying is harmless - it may even be helpful for the child to teach them how to stick up for themselves. In reality, however, an estimated 160,000 children miss school on any given day due to fear of bullying by other students. Every day, more than 280,000 students are physically attacked in schools and one out of ten students who drop out of school mentions repeated bullying as a factor. Bullying can have a serious impact on a child's educational experience, and not just by causing him or her to miss school. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that bullying has a negative impact on a child's academic performance.

Results of a UCLA Case Study

In 2010, the results of a UCLA study were published in the Journal of Early Adolescence. This study involved 2,300 middle school students in eleven different Los Angeles public schools as well as their teachers. The students themselves were asked to rank the amount they were bullied on a four-point scale and to make note of which students in their classes were bullied the most. The teachers were asked to rate the level of engagement and academic performance for their students. After collecting data over the course of three years, the results were studied and published in 2010.

According to this UCLA study, Jaana Juvonen, a professor of psychology at UCLA and lead author of the study, bullying and low academic achievement are frequently linked. Juvonen is quoted saying, "students who are repeatedly bullied receive poorer grades and participate less in class discussions... students may get mislabeled as low achievers because they do not want to speak up in class for fear of getting bullied". Juvenon also remarked that "Once students get labeled as 'dumb,' they get picked on and perform even worse".

Following this line of thinking, it is easy to see how this cycle might become self-perpetuating. Students who are bullied show less academic improvement due to a fear of standing out. As a result, teachers often identify those students as low achievers or unmotivated learners. These students may then receive less attention from teachers which only pushes them further down the academic rankings in their school. After reviewing the results of the study, Juvenon suggests that perhaps the best way to reduce bullying is to provide academic support for low-performing students.

The Impact on Students and Bullies

According to the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the effects of bullying extend far beyond the academic scope. Students who are repeatedly bullied may experience physical symptoms like stomach pains, headaches, and trouble sleeping. These side effects may pair with anxiety about going to school or participating in class which only leads to further loss of interest and reduced academic performance. Students who are bullied often exhibit low self-confidence, frequently experiencing depression, suicidal thoughts, and even violent outbreaks

You may be surprised to learn that students who bully other students also experience some negative side effects. For example, research suggests that students who bully are more likely to engage in violent behavior, to steal or vandalize property, to smoke, to drink, to report poor grades, and to carry a gun. The results of multiple long-term research studies suggest that these students are also more likely to commit serious crimes later in life. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to spot a bully. Bullies can be some of the students with the highest social skills or the best grades - they may even be good at ingratiating themselves with administrators, teachers, and other adults. When it is difficult to identify the bully, it is difficult for the school to take action.

What Can Schools Do to Reduce Bullying?

Once bullying becomes a problem in a school it can be difficult to eradicate - in fact, you may never get rid of it entirely. There are, however, certain steps that educators and parents can take to minimize bullying in their schools. The first step in reducing bullying is to increase awareness by providing education about what bullying looks like. Bullying can occur at any grade level and it is imperative that teachers and staff have a sound definition and that they are able to identify bullying when it occurs. It is important that the focus is placed on the negative behaviors, not only on the students who exhibit those behaviors. Students must come to understand the consequences of their behaviors and why they are wrong.

Once the school has made a sound definition to identify bullying behavior, a set of rules and policies must be put in place and enforced. It must be made clear to students, teachers, and faculty that bullying behavior will not be tolerated and there should be clear consequences for those who break the rules. Just as important as it is to identify and punish bullying behavior, however, it is also important that the school reward positive behaviors. The school should strive to make safe and healthy environment for all students by rewarding those who provide a good example of the school's policies in action.

National Bullying Prevention Center

While it is important that individual schools take a stand against bullying, it is also important that the issue gain national attention. The National Bullying Prevention Center was founded in 2006 and it is the goal of the organization to affect social change in order to render bullying no longer acceptable as a childhood rite of passage. This center is run by PACER, a center for children with disabilities. PACER offers a number of resources for teachers, parents, and students including an online information portal, a website for teens to become involved in the anti-bullying campaign, and an educational website for elementary school students.

Not only does PACER offer online resources to help schools, parents, and students in the fight against bullying, but they also sponsor National Bullying Prevention Month which occurs in October each year. During this month, communities across the nation gather together to raise awareness of bullying prevention, putting on community events and offering educational opportunities. The year 2016 will mark the 10-year anniversary of National Bullying Prevention Month and there are a number of special events being planned including Unity Day, community walks/runs against bullying, and a number of educational activities for schools, parents, and students of all ages across the nation.

Putting an end to bullying is not something that can happen overnight and it isn't something that can be achieved through the work of a single individual. In order to put an end to bullying, teachers and parents must come together with students to make a culture of tolerance and acceptance in their school. Only when students learn to respect and accept each other will bullying become reduced.

How Poverty Shapes the Brain: A study co-authored by TC's Kimberly Noble offers powerful new evidence

Family income is associated with children's brain structure, reports a new studyinNature Neurosciencecoauthored by Teachers College faculty member Kimberly Noble. The association appears to be strongest amongchildrenfrom lower-income families.

Ina sample ofmore than 1,000 typically developing children and adolescents between three and 20 years old, a group led by Noble and Elizabeth Sowell, Professor of Pediatrics at The Saban Research Institute at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, found that increases inboth parental education and family incomewere associatedwithincreases inthe surface area of numerous brain regions, including thoseimplicated in language andexecutive functions.Family incomeappearedtohave a stronger, positive relationship with brain surface area than parental education.

"We can't say if the brain and cognitive differences we observed are causally linked to income disparities," said Noble, who currently is both a TC Visiting Professor and Director of the Neurocognition, Early Experience and Development Lab of Columbia University Medical Center, but will join TC's faculty as Associate Professor of Neuroscience and Education in July in the Department of Biobehavioral Sciences. "But if so, policies that target poorest families would have the largest impact on brain development."

The results do notimply that a child's future cognitive or brain development is predetermined by socioeconomic circumstances, the researchers said.

Noble said that among children from the lowest-income families, small differences in income were associated with relatively large differences in surface area in a number of regions of the brain associated with skills important for academic success. Conversely, among children from higher-income families, incremental increases in income level were associated with much smaller differences in surface area. Higher income was also associated with better performance in certain cognitive skills - cognitive differences that could be accounted for, in part, by greater brain surface area.

In the study, titled "Family Income, Parental Education and Brain Structure in Children and Adolescents," the researchers, who were investigating the relationships between brain structure,family income, and parental education, controlled for potential differences in brain structurerelated toancestral originby collecting DNA samples from each participant.

"Family income is linked to factors such as nutrition, health care, schools, play areas and, sometimes, air quality," said Sowell, adding that everything going on in the environment shapes the developing brain."Future research may address the question of whether changing a child's environment - for instance, through social policies aimed at reducing family poverty - could change the trajectory of brain development and cognition for the better."

In fact, Noble and a team of esteemed social scientists and neuroscientists have already embarked on precisely that line of inquiry. They are in the midst of a pilot study in which mothers are given large or small monthly income payments for the first three years after their children are born. Ultimately they hope to recruit 1,000 mothers, half of whom would receive $4,000 per year ($333 per month), and half of whom would receive just $240 per year ($20 per month), a difference that is on par with the amount of the earned income tax credit.

"We'll be looking at brain function and cognitive ability at age 3, using cognitive assessments, social and emotional development tests and brain function as measured by electroencephalography and event-related potentials," Noble says. "If the children of mothers receiving larger payments show beneficial effects on brain function, it would be a step toward refuting the argument that poverty is a symptom, not a cause, and that wealthier parents are wealthy because they possess -- and pass on -- traits of self-discipline, determination and resilience. By identifying how income affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty policies that better support children's well-being."

Living near green space boosts teenagers' mental health, UCLA study finds

Venetia Lai | March 28, 2019

Teenagers who live within a few blocks of green space are more likely to have better mental health than teens who don't, according to a studyby theUCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

Researchers used California Health Interview Surveydata from 2011 to 2014,combined with information from a satellite-generated map showing the density of vegetation. They found that when the level of "greenness" within 350 meters of a home a radius of approximately two city blocks is in the top 25 percentile, a teen living in that home is 36 percent less likely to have serious psychological distress than a teen living in an area with greenness in the bottom 25 percentile.

The study, published in the journalHealth & Place, also found that adults 65 and older who have greater exposure to greenness also have lower rates of serious psychological distress, although younger adults do not have the same mental health benefit as seniors.

According to previous research, that may be because older teens and seniors are more likely to stay within their neighborhoods and have a stronger response to their local environment. Meng said that because teens' brains are still developing, the finding that teens benefit more from being near green space is significant.

"The study suggests that older adults and teens seem to respond well mentally to nearby 'doses' of plants and trees," said Ying-Ying Meng, co-director of the center's Chronic Disease Program and a co-author of the study.

Pan Wang, the study's lead author and a former statistician at the center, said city and neighborhood planners should be aware that greater numbers of trees and more park space can support the health of teens and seniors in their communities. She added that residents can also contribute by planting trees on their own property.

"Making a neighborhood greener and healthier is a mission that involves everybody," she said.

Other authors of the study are Ninez Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, and Vanessa Lam, a former research associate at the center.