June 5, 2017

Chapman Universitys Department of Physical Therapy (DPT) program has received a 10 year reaccreditation by its accrediting body, the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE).

A 10 year accreditation reflects the programs deep commitment to physical therapy education and the resulting reputation DPT has in the region for graduating extraordinary clinicians, said Janeen Hill, Ph.D., dean of Chapmans Crean College of health and Behavioral Sciences. This accreditation reflects sustained effort by DPT to produce a strong self-study and to demonstrate excellence to the site visiting team from CAPTE. Many congratulations to the DPT faculty and staff for this achievement.

The notification letter included the following commendation:

The Commission commends the program for the quality of its Self-study Report. The program submitted a well-written, thorough, concise and comprehensive Self-study Report that clearly conveyed the nature and scope of the educational experience.

Chapmans physical therapy program enjoys the title of the oldest continually accredited program in California. Since 1928, Chapmans Department of Physical Therapy is one of the longest running physical therapy programs in the United States. All of the faculty are licensed practitioners with advanced degrees, and the student-to-faculty ratio is 12:1, providing a highly personalized education. In 2017, the program received 1,450 applicants for a coveted 80 openings. Chapmans first-time licensure pass rate for PT graduates in 2016 was 100 percent, in addition to our overall pass rate for the past five years also being 100 percent, making the PT program one that aggressively prepares our graduates for success in the work force.

The graduate program offers two degrees: the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree for students interested in becoming a physical therapy professional; and the Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy degree for physical therapists with baccalaureate or master degrees seeking to further their education to achieve the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree.

Chapmans brand new, state-of-the-art health science campus offers students access to top-of-the-line labs and physical therapy equipment, including a traditional motion analysis lab, an anti-gravity treadmill, and a state-of-the-art 180 degree Virtual Reality (VR) Gait Real-time Analysis Interactive Lab (GRAIL) by Motekforce. The VR motion analysis laboratory comes with a dual-belted instrumented treadmill with a self paced option and 6-degrees of freedom, integrated 10 camera and EMG systems. The GRAIL provides the DPT program faculty instrumentation to conduct cutting edge human movement system intervention studies.

Excerpt from:
Chapman University's Physical Therapy Program receives 10-year Accreditation - Chapman University: Happenings (blog)

The first systematic analysis of police body camera footage shows that officers consistently use less respectful language with black community members than with white community members, according to new Stanford research.

Stanford researchers have developed a computational tool to analyze language extracted from police body camera footage as data for understanding law enforcement interaction with the community. (Image credit: Ryan Johnson/Flickr/Creative Commons)

Although they are subtle, these widespread racial disparities in officers language use may erode police-community relations, said the researchers who conducted the study, published June 5 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Our findings highlight that, on the whole, police interactions with black community members are more fraught than their interactions with white community members, explained Jennifer Eberhardt, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Stanford.

The racial disparities in respectful speech remained even after the researchers controlled for the race of the officer, the severity of the infraction, and the location and outcome of the stop.

To analyze the body camera footage, a multidisciplinary team from Stanfords psychology, linguistics and computer science departments first developed a new artificial intelligence technique for measuring levels of respect in officers language. They then applied this technique to the transcripts from 981 traffic stops the Oakland Police Department (OPD) made in a single month.

The researchers novel technique demonstrated that white residents were 57 percent more likely than black residents to hear a police officer say the most respectful utterances, such as apologies and expressions of gratitude like thank you. Meanwhile, black community members were 61 percent more likely than white residents to hear an officer say the least respectful utterances, such as informal titles like dude and bro and commands like hands on the wheel.

To be clear: There was no swearing, said Dan Jurafsky, a study co-author and Stanford professor of linguistics and of computer science. These were well-behaved officers. But the many small differences in how they spoke with community members added up to pervasive racial disparities.

The fact that we now have the technology and methods to show these patterns is a huge advance for behavioral science, computer science and the policing industry, said Rob Voigt, a Stanford linguistics doctoral student and lead author of the study. Police departments can use these tools not only to diagnose problems in police-community relations but also to develop solutions.

The study is not the first time Eberhardt has collaborated with the OPD to study possible racial disparities in policing. In 2014, the City of Oakland contracted with Eberhardt and her team to assist the Oakland Police Department in complying with a federal order to collect and analyze data from traffic and pedestrian stops by race.

OPD, like many police departments nationwide, has been using body-worn cameras to monitor police-community interactions. But drawing accurate conclusions from hundreds of hours of footage is challenging, Eberhardt said. Just cherry-picking negative or positive episodes, for example, can lead to inaccurate impressions of police-community relations overall, she said.

The police are already wary of footage being used against them, Eberhardt said. At the same time, many departments want their actions to be transparent to the public.

To satisfy demands for both privacy and transparency, the researchers needed a way to approach the footage as data showing general patterns, rather than as evidence revealing wrongdoing in any single stop.

Yet researchers cant just sit and watch every single stop, Eberhardt explained. It would take too long. Besides, their own biases could affect their judgments of the interactions.

Together, Eberhardt, Jurafsky and seven other colleagues examined transcripts from 183 hours of body camera footage from 981 stops, which 245 different OPD officers conducted in April 2014.

In the first phase of the study, human participants examined a subsample of the transcribed conversations between officers and community members without knowing the race or gender of either and rated how respectful, polite, friendly, formal and impartial the officers language was.

In the second phase, the researchers used these ratings to develop a computational linguistic model of how speakers show respect, including apologizing, softening commands and expressing concern for listeners well-being. They then created software that automatically identified these words, phrases and linguistic patterns in the transcripts of the officers language.

In the third phase, the researchers used this software to analyze the remaining transcripts a total of 36,000 officer utterances with 483,966 words. Because the team had so much data, they could statistically account for the race of the officer, the severity of the offense and other factors that could affect officers language.

Understanding and improving the interactions between the police and the communities they serve is incredibly important, but the interactions can be difficult to study, Jurafsky said. Computational linguistics offers a way to aggregate across many speakers and many interactions to detect the way that everyday language can reflect our attitudes, thoughts and emotions which are sometimes outside of our own awareness.

Our findings are not proof of bias or wrongdoing on the part of individual officers, Eberhardt cautioned. Many factors could drive racial disparities in respectful speech.

The research team is currently extending their work to analyze the language used by community members during the traffic stops and to study other linguistic features captured by the body cameras, including tone of voice. They also plan to explore the interplay of officers and community members speech as it unfolds over time.

There is so much you can do with this footage, Eberhardt said. We are very excited about the possibilities.

Eberhardt praised the City of Oakland and OPD for being open to having their data examined, and said she hopes that other departments across the country will invite similar collaborations.

Im hopeful that, with the development of computational tools like ours, more law enforcement agencies will approach their body camera footage as data for understanding, rather than as evidence for blaming or exonerating, Eberhardt said. Together, researchers and police departments can use these tools to improve police-community relations.

The studys other co-authors were Nicholas Camp, Rebecca Hetey and Camilla Griffiths of the Department of Psychology; and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, William Hamilton and David Jurgens of the Department of Computer Science.

Read this article:
Cops speak less respectfully to black community members - Stanford University News

Different surveys have widely varying opinions on the millennial generation -- those between the ages of 18 and 30 who are entering or already in the workforce. Some imply this is a group of slackers living in their parents' basements. Others show them as ambitious, hardworking and struggling to pay off college debt with several part-time jobs.

How do they see themselves? A new report from the blog Squared Awayshows a lot of "youthful optimism" among this generation. But is it justified? "The changing job market is making it increasingly difficult for young adults to get their careers off to the right start," said Kim Blanton, writer and editor for Squared Away at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

That's because the employment landscape is changing. Millennials are often accused of changing jobs just to earn more money. But that may not be their choice, said Blanton, citing a recent Federal Reserve surveyshowing that young adults prefer jobs that are "permanent and steady," not ones like driving for Uber or freelancing, which aren't secure and could change from month to month even when they make more money.

Surprisingly and contrary to popular belief that millennials jump jobs for money, they actually "prefer steady employment to higher pay," according to the Fed survey.

Play Video

According to a survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, young people between the ages of 19 and 24 are more likely to admit the...

Sometimes higher pay isn't even an option. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),the fastest-growing jobs are often part-time, low-paying and seasonal, and lack health benefits, retirement savings accounts and paid-time off.

The BLS report found that the top 10 careers expected to generate 5 million jobs by 2024 include personal care and home health aides; food preparation, cooks and servers; nursing assistants; and retail sales, which net annual earnings below $30,000 -- or just over a living wage for a family of four in most areas.

Slightly above that level were customer service representatives and construction workers, with salaries between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. Registered nurses and operations managers were found to earn more than $60,000 annually.

According to the Fed, a college degree -- with its staggering debt averaging $37,000 in 2016 -- doesn't guarantee a career. Only 45 percent of millennials reported obtaining employment in their field.

So is it time to reorient job training in this new world of employment? "A bright spot is the so-called STEM jobs, in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields," said Blanton. "Two-thirds of young adults who studied in these areas are getting jobs in these fields, which experienced the highest earnings in the BLS's fastest growing occupations." In contrast, the success rate was less for graduates in the life sciences, business, health and behavioral science fields.

Play Video

But president cites industry study that doesn't count clean energy jobs or the cost of climate change

Another viable choice: Don't attend college. Young adults with noncollege certificates and technical degrees had an easier time getting jobs in their fields than those with associates' and only slightly more trouble than those with bachelors' degrees.

Perhaps millennials are more hopeful now because they were so-down-in the-mouth during the Great Recession and the years shortly afterwards. In 2013, less than half were optimistic about future employment opportunities, and only 64 percent said they were able to cover their monthly expenses.

By 2015 those numbers had risen to 61 percent who were hopeful and 73 percent who were able to crack the monthly nut. But, of course, that still left more than a quarter who were sheltering with their parents, or nearly broke.

What about 2017? The May jobs report showed a 16-year low unemployment rate of 4.3 percent but also a slow-growing economy, said Director Michael Hicks of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. So perhaps it's time for yet another millennial survey.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
What millennials really want in the workplace - CBS News

Psychology Today (blog)

A Periodic Table of Behavior for Psychology Psychology Today (blog) Modern science took off during the Enlightenment and changed the world. Science was differed from philosophy in that it did not presuppose how nature must be, as the early philosophers tended to do, but instead scientists got up out of their armchairs ...

Read the rest here:
A Periodic Table of Behavior for Psychology - Psychology Today (blog)

Memorial Day weekend followed by Princeton University reunions and graduation is a time when most Princeton residents rarely think about scarcity. Generally, the conversation under tents and in backyards is filled with groans about too much food, too much drink, too many people, too many cars, and too much stuff loaded into those cars.

On the weekend of June 10, however, several Princetonians are going to be thinking a lot about scarcity, thanks to Princeton University Professor Eldar Shafir. Dr. Shafir who is speaking at a Housing Initiatives of Princeton Garden Party benefit June 10 is internationally renowned, along with his co-author Dr. Sendhil Mullainathan from Harvard University, for the 2013 book "Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much."

As a behavioral scientist whose main area of interest is behavioral economics and decision-making, Shafir will talk about the thesis of his book the scarcity vicious cycle and relate it to the mission of HIP. Individuals with a scarcity of funds fail to make smart decisions concerning their finances for a variety of cognitive reasons, including the lack of supportive resources, thus their lives spiral downward. It turns out that the work done by HIP could be a case study for Shafirs academic work.

Since 2004, the Housing Initiatives of Princeton has been helping to break that downward spiral for dozens of people by offering a holistic menu of services to those in dire financial circumstances. It is dedicated to transitioning low-income working families and individuals who are homeless or facing imminent homelessness to permanent housing and sustained self-sufficiency.

The charitable non-profit does far more than place a temporary roof over ones head. The organization becomes a supportive resource for clients by providing individualized case management services to enhance life skills needed to attain self-sufficiency and permanent housing and ultimately to succeed independently.

Most in Princeton have a comfortable life," Shafir said. "We can afford to hire accountants, investment brokers, mortgage brokers, psychologists, attorneys to help make smart decisions about our well being. But there are those who are struggling with a scarcity of funds and do not have the support systems. The problems associated with poverty consume mental energy and capacity. Those struggling financially often make decisions that perpetuate and exacerbate poverty."

The concept of scarcity and smart decision-making applies to more than financial decisions, and thus everyone can relate to the premise of the book, regardless of his or her economic situation, noted HIP Interim Board Chair Carol Golden. The authors research and conclusions describe how scarcity creates a similar psychology for everyone struggling to manage with less than they need. Busy people fail to manage their time efficiently for the same reasons the poor and those maxed out on credit cards fail to manage their money. The dynamics of scarcity reveal why dieters find it hard to resist temptation, why students and busy executives mismanage their time.

The book is so significant, in my opinion, because it gives individuals who have no financial problems a real understanding as to why it is extremely difficult for people with great financial challenges to change their lives unless they have access to outside help, said Golden, a Princeton resident and attorney who volunteers her services as the full-time chair of the organization, officially known as Housing Initiatives of Princeton Charitable Trust.

Shafir further elaborated on his thesis in a research paper, Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function, published in the August 2013 issue of Science (written with Anandi Mani and Jiaying Zhao).

According to the papers summary, the poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty.

We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis," the authors wrote. "First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich.

"This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor.

As Princeton University Professor of Behavioral Science and Public Policy, Shafir, who has been working at the university for the past 25 years, also serves as the director (its inaugural director) of Princetons Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy, and co-founder and scientific director at ideas42, a social science research and development lab.

A $10 million anonymous gift created theCenter for Behavioral Science and Public Policy at Princeton, enabling the university to strengthen its leading role in this emerging field and improve the development of effective policymaking. The donor, a Princeton University parent, was a longtime admirer of the work of Dr. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, and a Princeton University professor of psychology and public affairs emeritus, and Dr. Anne Treisman, a Princeton University professor of psychology emerita.

The center is building on the research that earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 2002. The award-winning work integrated insights from psychological research into economics, particularly concerning decision making under uncertainty.

In the traditional view, policies are designed for people who make rational decisions based on thorough consideration of the options and on well-informed cost-benefit analyses," the university stated in a release announcing the gift in 2015. "In the approach pioneered at Princeton, policies are developed with a focus on what really drives people in decision making the idiosyncratic and sometimes surprising ways in which they view their choices, perceive the social, economic and political world around them, and decide whether or not, and how, to act. Why do some people spend too much and save too little, choose unhealthy diets that might shorten their lives?"

Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said:

This generous gift will allow us to deepen and expand our efforts in an extremely promising area of teaching and research. . . . Princetons faculty members are applying behavioral science techniques to topics that include law, economics, health care, household finance and dispute resolution, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said. "We expect that the research conducted at the center will directly influence local, national and global public policy, identifying new approaches to address social problems and improve lives.

And HIP clients and supporters offer an abundance, not scarcity, of thanks for the academic work and research that will help HIP serve the community in the most effective manner possible.

The Housing Initiatives of Princeton will host its annual Garden Party, June 10, beginning at 4 p.m. at a private residence in Princeton. Admission costs $95 and features Shafir's talk, cocktails and light fare. To register, go towww.housinginitiativesofprinceton.org.

Go here to read the rest:
LOOSE ENDS: Eldar Shafir on the effects scarcity - centraljersey.com

Alia E. Dastagir , USA TODAY , TEGNA 12:48 PM. EDT June 02, 2017

Members of the Union for Concerned Scientists pose for photographs with Muppet character Beaker in front of The White House before heading to the National Mall for the March for Science rally in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis, Getty Images)

Editor's note: This story was originally published in April. It has been updated to include the latest on the Paris climate agreement.

Thousands of scientists and their allies filled the streets of the nations capital onEarth Day for theMarch for Science, advocating for the importance of scientific truth in an era weve ominously been told doesnt value the truth any longer. Just a week later, the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., demanded policymakers not only respect science, but that they also act on it.

And now, drawing global dismay and condemnation,President Trump has announced that the U.S. willno longer participate in the landmark Paris climate agreement.

Advocates say science is under attack. President Trumps Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt doesnt accept evidence that shows humans are causing climate change.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos'2001 commentson wanting to advance Gods kingdom through education have educatorsworried she could undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.Trumps budget blueprint slashes funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Esteemed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an impassioned video on hisFacebook page, said he fears people have lost the ability to judge what's true and what's not.

"That is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," he says.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Trump administration, and by whatthey see as the diminishing role of objectivescience in American life. But theGeneral Social Survey, one of the oldest and most comprehensive recurring surveys of American attitudes, shows that although trust in public institutions has declined over the last half century, science is the one institution that has not suffered any erosion of public confidence. Americans who say they have a great deal of confidence in science has hovered around 40% since 1973.

Many scientists say there is no war on their profession at all.

According to the 2016 GSS data released this month, people trust scientists more than Congress (6%) and the executive branch (12%). They trust them more than the press (8%). They have more trust in scientists than in the people who run major companies (18%), more than in banks and financial institutions (14%), the Supreme Court (26%) or organized religion (20%).

So why all the headlines about the "war on science"?

Though science still holds an esteemed place in America, there isa gapbetween what scientists and some citizens think a rift that is not entirely new on issues such as climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, human evolution and childhood vaccines.

Americans dont reject science as a whole. People love the weather forecast. They love their smartphones. When people reject science, its because theyre asked to believe something that conflicts with a deeply held view, whether political (myparty does not endorse that), religious (my god didnot say that) or personal (that's not how I was raised).

Manyconservatives reject the science of man-madeclimate change, just as manyliberals reject the science that shows nuclear energy can safely combat it. The views we express signal which politicalgroup we belong to. The gap between what science shows and what people believe, sociologists say, is about our identity.

The issue of climate change isnt about what you know, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology and law at Yale and a member of the universitysCultural CognitionProject. Its about who you are.

Polarization has exacerbated our differences, andwe know some of whats to blame:Therise of social media. A more partisan press. A dearth of universally-accepted experts. And greater access to information, which Christopher Graves, president and founder of the Ogilvy Center forBehavioralScience, said does not tug us toward the center, but rather makes us more polarized.

A human being cannot grasp something as a fact if it in any way undermines their identity, Graves said. And that is animmutable human foible. These things have always been there, but not at scale."

The GSS data show confidence in institutions overall has been in decline since the 1970s, though political scientists are quick to caution that this is animperfect benchmark.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist atDartmouth College, said trust in the mid-20th century was unnaturally high and polarization was unnaturally low,bolstered by unusual growth in middle class income and a reduction of inequality, which is when the "20th century version of the American dream and the trust in government to produce it was fully mythologized."

There was an usually high level of trust that came out of World War II, before the turn towards a more cynical view ofthe institutions of society especially politics and media after Vietnam and Watergate,"Nyhan said.

So how much more polarization can we expect?

Social scientists aren't sure, but they agreeTrump complicates things.

"He really is an us-versus-them figure," Kahan said. "People arent thinking about the arguments. Theyre thinkingaboutwhat side they're on."

Think about the way you search for information. If youre a new mom who believes vaccines cause autism (and a number of women in your mommy group do, too) are you searching for research that shows whether they actually do, or are you Googling vaccines cause autism to find stories to affirm your belief? (Studies show there isno link between vaccines and autism.)

The mother above is probably motivated by fear. Suchmotivated reasoning,says political scientistCharles Taberof Stony Brook University, shows that we are all fundamentally biased.

You have a basic psychological tendency to perpetuate your own beliefs, he said to really discount anything that runs against your own prior views.

It gets even more complicated.Once weve convinced ourselves of something, research suggests factsdont appeal to us.A studyco-led by Nyhanfound that trying to correct a persons misperception can have a backfire effect. When you encounter facts that dont support your idea, your belief in that idea actually grows stronger.

So what if we did a better job teaching people how science works? Doesn't help, Kahan said. Research shows peoplewith the most science intelligence are also the most partisan.

Its not knowledge but curiosity, Kahan says, that makes us more likely to accept scientific truths. Arecent studythat Kahan led found people with more scientific curiosity were more likely to be open-minded about information that challenged their existing political views.

And arguing helps, too. ScientistsHugo Mercier and Dan Sperber contend in their new book,The Enigma of Reason,that reason isn't somethingthat evolved sohumans could solve problems on their own. It developed so we could work together.

Instead of forcing someone to agree that climate change is caused by humans, Graves said, you can stop once you agree that, for example, flooding in Florida is a problem, and that you have to fix it (the bipart
isanSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compactcan teach us about that).

Marcia McNutt, an American geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said she isnt worried about a crisis of science, though she hopes more people would understand science is about the unbiased search for truth" and that benefits everyone.

Being a scientist only means that when I have an intuition about something, I test that intuition, and see if Im right, she said. A very, very smart mentor told me once, I don't trust anyone who hasn't at least changed their mind once in their career.

Science, it appears, may havemore lessons for usthan we think.

2017 USATODAY.COM

View original post here:
People trust science. So why don't they believe it? - WXIA-TV

SmartBrief (registration) (blog)

Behavioral science hacks for your next speaking opportunity SmartBrief (registration) (blog) I was giving a presentation on behavioral science and customer experience at the end of a long conference. Sure, I could've hit my listeners over the head with an academic discourse on predicted utility versus value-seeking, but showing it drove the ...

Link:
Behavioral science hacks for your next speaking opportunity - SmartBrief (registration) (blog)