Evaluation of Society of Pediatric Psychology Initiatives to Support Trainees in Pediatric Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) outlines the need to devise strategies to develop and retain the future generation of pediatric psychologists within its strategic objectives. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the use and perceived value of the training initiatives offered by SPP and to examine differences based on trainee demographics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, type of training program). The training initiatives fall into 4 categories: leadership, networking, awards/funding, and publications/newsletters. A brief questionnaire assessing use and perceived value of training initiatives, as well as number of presentations and outcomes, was sent via e-mail to the SPP division listservs. One-hundred and 34 trainees completed the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and multiple regressions were used to examine the associations between demographic variables, use and perceived value, and outcomes (e.g., publications and presentations). Within this sample, initiatives were well known and utilized. With few exceptions, training initiatives were rated as having moderate to high perceived value. There were significant associations between the number of initiatives which respondents had utilized and indicators of career success, including authored publications, F (7, 102) = 5.45, p < .001 and conference presentations, F (7, 99) = 9.47, p < .001. SPP training initiatives have a high perceived value, and use of initiatives is associated with indicators of career success. Results highlight the importance of continually assessing the initiatives for perceived benefit and value in order to optimize resource allocation, increase visibility of initiatives, and meeting the training needs of a diverse body of pediatric psychology trainees. Implications for Impact Statement The present study evaluated the use and perceived value of training initiatives offered by the Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) and examined differences based on trainee demographics. Overall, SPP training initiatives have a high perceived value, and are associated with indicators of career success. Results highlight the importance of continually assessing the initiatives for perceived benefit and value in order to optimize resource allocation, increase visibility of initiatives, and meeting the training needs of a diverse body of pediatric psychology trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".