The director of NIMH, Dr. Thomas R. Insel, announced that grants would preferentially go to researchers who decided against using the DSM5 to categorize their participant pool. Instead, he encourages researchers to look at biological markers that distinguish among participants. NIMH backpedaled a bit later, stating that the DSM was the best resource we have at the moment.

Many researchers, counselors, and therapists have responded with whole-hearted delight. They are  hoping that the definitions of mental illnesses will be based on research, especially genetic and other biological information, rather than on what people feel are similar disorders. But they also want these disorders to be seen as social/spiritual/interpersonal issues. Insel’s statement fails to address this aspect of the DSM.

By Don Piraro at http://freakoutcrazy.com

I think this is quite interesting. My feeling has always been that once the causes of a psychiatric illness are determined to be biological, that disease is generally considered a neurological, rather than psychiatric disorder. So Alzheimer’s is now considered a neurological disorder. It’s given more respect as an illness, and generally taken from the purvey of psychiatrists and given to neurologists to treat, though they are still listed in the DSM.

On the other hand, “disorders” that we don’t find a biological or genetic marker for will probably be considered to be social or psychological in origin and not a real illness. But as my adviser in grad school said, anything experienced will imprint in some way on the brain. A biological marker doesn’t necessarily mean an etiology. Of course, it’s cyclical — a change in the brain affects the emotional state of the owner of the brain.

Anyway, have fun with the DSM5. Earlier versions are also posted on Psychiatry Online, so you can easily compare the DSM IV-TR with the newer version.

Mental health providers will be reporting using the ICD-10 classification. The ICD used to be published on PsychiatryOnline, but I can no longer find it there. However, we’ll be getting books on using the ICD-10 online in a few weeks. So you’ll be able to find all the information and help you’ll need on the library’s website. (The DSM5 does list the ICD-10 codes next to their own codes.)

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid website has a lot of help for providers and others for transitioning to the ICD-10.

Let me know if you need anything. I’m here to help!

I came up with 7 different advantages we have over regular folks. I forgot the last one, that happens because of our personalities and/or because of the 7 advantages we have: we’re obsessive; we never give up.

But here are the 7:

1. Students are panicked! We’re not. We can still think, while their minds are buzzing with so many thoughts, many of which are about the dire consequences of not finishing their paper in time.
   
   
2. We know how information is organized in a library. All the terminology on our websites makes sense to us. We know what a library does, so we know what to look for.
   For instance, we know that libraries generally have guides that point out the most important resources for each field of study. There are several names for these (subject guides, research guides, lib guides and an older term pathfinders), but we know what lies behind those names. Students don’t even know to look for such guides.
3. Databases are fun! (for us). Not necessarily for other people. We just love to play with websites and databases, just to see what they might do differently than all the other databases (100′s) that we’ve played with.
   
   Other folks just want to use the databases to find the information they need. And they’ve only used 2 or 3 databases in their lives. So, not so intuitive to them.
4. We know how research is done (at least in our specialty fields). In the Social Sciences, you can’t answer huge questions with a single experiment or study. Research studies don’t answer the question “How do children learn?” They answer the question, “How do 2 year olds learn to use paintbrushes through imitation?”Broader questions are usually answered by faculty who have already been tenured and are synthesizing their lifetime of research in a book, not an article.
5. An answer to us is not necessarily an answer for students.
   Often students want a definite answer, with a number attached. Science doesn’t give definite answers. All science is specific to the context of the research and subject to change when deeper information is found.
6. We understand the levels of analysis of the different research tools we use. You don’t look for article titles in catalogs. You don’t look for topic sentences in subject guides.
   Databases differ from each other. You don’t look for industrial psychology in MergentOnline (a business database).
   Summon is helping us with this.
7. Finally, librarians love to share what they’ve found with other librarians! Our colleagues in our libraries, universities, on the Internet, our associations spend lots of energy helping each other. We are the coolest OpenAccess/OpenData people alive.

And we took this position because we love research, learning, and guiding other people to the enormous amount of information we can find. And helping them analyze and evaluate, plan their future research, and find fun reading to do during their breaks!

This is probably what your references look like now:

Your DisplayNow

But if you want to quickly see what your references would look like in your bibliography, you can customize the display to show any type of publication style. This way you don’t have to print out a bibliography every time you want to see if your citations are going to look correct.

Customized to display APA Style.

Here’s how:

Scroll down to Customize on the right-hand side of the column. It’s close to the bottom.

Click on Customize

Select the publication style you want. (This time I chose APA 6th ed., APA style annotated, and MLA7th ed.) Click on save customized settings.

Choose the publication style you want from hundreds of choices.

Now you can choose from any of the display types listed in your change view menu.

Click on the display style you prefer.

This is what it would look like in MLA 7th edition.

And then MLA 7th edition.

Pretty cool, Huh?

Here’s an example from an article in the Annual Review of Clincal Psychology.
You read this article;

Hayes, S. C., Villatte, M., Levin, M., & Hildebrandt, M. (2011). Open, aware, and active: Contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioral and cognitive therapies. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 141-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449

It cited an meta-analytic article about the outcomes from 39 studies of Mindfulness-Based Therapies.

This is great, because you’ll get the studies collapsed, plus you’ll find many articles that might look at a specific population or used a particluar research method.

Hofmann SG, Sawyer AT, Witt AA, Oh D. 2010. The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: a meta-analytic review. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 78:169–83.

Just fill in all or part of the information into the search. Make sure you select the fields you’re searching in the dropdown menu and don’t type too much of the title or author.  You don’t want to make spelling or punctuation errors.:

But what’s this abbreviation for the journal? J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. Sheesh. Let’s try using the Journal Finder. There’s a link on the right side of the Journal box. That will bring you to the Journal Lookup page.

Type in the beginning of the journal title. Whatever you can guess from the abbreviation. Don’t type in too much. You might make mistakes about the prepositions, especially. Click on search.

Check the box of the journal. Then the Add to Search button.

Here’s the search page:

And here’s the result:

Not only have we found an article that’s right on topic, but it’s an important one. It’s only been published for 2 or 3 years and has already been cited 145 times! And those articles can help interpret this article. Do some of the authors feel this article or the original articles had serious flaws? We can find out by reading at least some of the citing articles! Score!

Instead, add the header and the document title. Then click on Quick Parts -> Fields -> then scroll down to page. Perfect!

Have you seen this before?

This past week Carolyn DeLuca (our Electronic Resources Librarian) and I have been looking at specific articles that students said they couldn’t link to after they found the record in PsycINFO.

What seems to be happening is that when the record in PsycINFO  doesn’t include page numbers or other important fields, the Get IT button is going to our error page. (This often happens when the print version hasn’t come out yet, so they don’t know the pages yet.) This allows you to click on a button that says Journal. Normally clicking on that will let you go to the journal and you can navigate around to the article. This isn’t working either. The most recent, not yet in print issue, isn’t listed.

Articles that say First Posting or No Pagination are problematic. We may or may not subscribe to them.

If you click on the DOI, you can go directly to the article. But this only works if we subscribe directly to the publisher. If it’s in another database, like Academic Search Premier, the link will ask you to PAY for it. You’ve already paid for it through the library.

If  you  are having problems accessing articles, please let me know. I’ll try to get it for you.  We can’t fix the problems until we know about them.

The following comes from their website:

DSM-5 Draft Criteria Open for Final Public Comment

May 2nd through June 15th, 2012

For the next 6 weeks we are pleased to once again offer the opportunity to submit comments on the draft fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This commenting period marks the third and final time DSM-5 draft criteria will be available for your feedback. Following this period the site will remain viewable with the draft proposals until DSM-5’s publication.

Here are some issues that you should be thinking about when reading these articles: You still must critically read ANY article you see.

September 29, 2010
Research Without Borders
Scholarly Communication Program
Columbia University

Prof. Jorgensen has another video for Word for MAC. If you go to his website, scroll down. On the right-hand side of the page to “Using APA Style in MS Word”. These videos allow you use a table of contents to jump through the video. Thank you, Prof. Jorgensen!

The headings never seem to do what you want!

I’ve finally learned how to set up headings in Word. Thank goodness people all over the web are so helpful!

Here are two handouts that explain the process, step by step:

http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/numbering/numbering20072010.html

http://cybertext.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/word-2007_-taming-multilevel-list-numbering.pdf

Extra bonus: When you use Headings in Word, you can make Word automatically produce a Table of contents.

If you’d like, come visit me and we can work on your Headings together.