Angela B. Bradford

Overview

Approximately two years ago we received a MEG grant to support our project Emotional Regulation in Marital Therapy. Clinical research indicates that couples therapy is effective in 30-50% of cases, and although some factors have been identified as predictors of change, there is no research into how these or other factors work to promote change in clinical couples. Drawing on concepts from interpersonal neurobiology, polyvagal theory, and findings from basic, unapplied research, we are examining emotional regulation as the “how” in therapeutic effectiveness.

Evaluation of how well the academic objectives of the proposal were met

Our original project timeline had us beginning data collection in 2015 and completing it for analysis in 2016. Unfortunately, recruiting participants was initially very unsuccessful, which necessitated changing our inclusion criteria. After we received IRB approval to do so, we were able to successfully begin recruiting participants. We were much more successful in 2016, but, due to the intensive nature of clinical research, still only have half of our target 40 couples. Thus, although the MEG grant only spans two years, the project is ongoing, and we hope to continue our planned activities until the data have all been collected.

Evaluation of the mentoring environment

Each of the three principles of a mentoring environment that we worked toward will be evaluated independently:

Principle 1. Students should have access to faculty (or mentoring teams) for sufficient
time to allow development of personal and professional relationships. Almost all of the students (with only one or two exceptions) had at least weekly contact with one of the PIs on the project. In addition to asking about students’ well-being, this time was spent training students in research methodology, data collection, and data analysis processes. Additionally, the students worked with each other in the research practicum classes and the lab established for this project, so relationships were developed within level (e.g., across undergraduates) and between levels (e.g., between undergraduates and graduates).

Principle 2. Students should be involved in programs and processes wherein scholarship and central academic activities in its several forms constitutes the core of their experiences. Everything students did was part of the research process. Some students spent more time conducting literature reviews, whereas others spent more time cleaning data. Across all students, however, the experiences were focused on mentoring them in (marriage and family therapy) clinical research.

Principle 3. Students should be given the opportunity to grow in skills and increase in responsibility in the project or experience in which they are involved. All students had the opportunity to grown in skills and increase in responsibility, although not many took that opportunity. This was likely the most difficult part of the project as students tended to do what
was asked of them without looking for further opportunities. For the most part, their attitudes reflected that of hard workers, but not necessarily of someone trying to move to the next level. Note, however, that two of the undergraduate students demonstrated such a high quality of interpersonal and academic work that they have since been admitted to our graduate program to continue work on this project. Additionally, among the current graduate students, three did demonstrate enough initiative and competence that they were given more sensitive tasks (e.g., conducting the fMRI scanning of participants).

List of students who participated and what academic deliverables they have produced or it is anticipated they will produce

Immediately after receiving the MEG grant, we added a research practicum to the course schedule. The plan for the course was to give students hands-on opportunities to work with research participants by assisting in electrode placement, train them in observational coding, and orient them to central project hypotheses. Because the IRB approval and participant recruitment took longer than expected, we were never able to engage in most of the planned activities for this class. Each student did, however, conduct and produce a literature review on a central project hypothesis.

Paige Bickmore
Daxten Bowen
Taylor Day
Abel Donnelly
Bryson Frehner
William Glad
Katie hall
Lillie Hammock
Christina Jenkins
Jessica Judd
McKenzie Kline
Julia Larsen
Jennifer Mills
Marina Potter
Abbey Roll
Christina Tenney
Laura Walton
Thomas White
Stephanie Wood
Misuzu Yamashita

The following students are in a class this semester (Winter 2017). Last semester they were trained on an observational coding scheme and are currently actively coding therapy videos. As a result, they have produced coded data to be analyzed for the project. Once the coding is complete, they will have the opportunity to present an academic poster using the data if they so choose.

Dalton Anderson
Kimberly Child
Boone Christianson
Jason Eldredge
Yerenia Flores
Denise Hansen
Nolan Harris
Anne Hopkin
Eulalia Miles
Jessica Remington
Taylor Smith
Megan Stotts
Chelsey White
Dorothy Clayton
Christopher Neu

The following students are paid undergraduate employees. (Note that two of them are in the class mentioned above.) They are have and are still producing cleaned physiologic and observational data. They also will have the opportunity to use data to present a poster or at a conference if they so choose. (Data are still being cleaned and not ready for analysis.)
Dorothy Clayton
Brian Fleming
Christopher Neu

The following students are current or graduated Master’s and Doctoral students. They have functioned in every aspect of the project. Current students* will produce a thesis or dissertation
using the data from the project. It is anticipated these will all become published journal articles shortly after thesis/dissertation defense.

Julia Bernards*
Emily Stephens*
Samantha Simpson*
Kayla Burningham
Alexis Lee
Jennifer Espino*
Bailey Selland
Erica Delgado

Description of the results/findings

As noted, the project is ongoing, and there are not yet findings.

Description of how the budget was spent