1
|
El Amin M, Borders JC, Long HL, Keller MA, Kearney E. Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey. JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING RESEARCH : JSLHR 2023; 66:1928-1947. [PMID: 36417765 PMCID: PMC10554559 DOI: 10.1044/2022_jslhr-22-00062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/07/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Open science is a collection of practices that seek to improve the accessibility, transparency, and replicability of science. Although these practices have garnered interest in related fields, it remains unclear whether open science practices have been adopted in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD). This study aimed to survey the knowledge, implementation, and perceived benefits and barriers of open science practices in CSD. METHOD An online survey was disseminated to researchers in the United States actively engaged in CSD research. Four-core open science practices were examined: preregistration, self-archiving, gold open access, and open data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models. RESULTS Two hundred twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were doctoral students (38%) or assistant professors (24%) at R1 institutions (58%). Participants reported low knowledge of preregistration and gold open access. There was, however, a high level of desire to learn more for all practices. Implementation of open science practices was also low, most notably for preregistration, gold open access, and open data (< 25%). Predictors of knowledge and participation, as well as perceived barriers to implementation, are discussed. CONCLUSION Although participation in open science appears low in the field of CSD, participants expressed a strong desire to learn more in order to engage in these practices in the future. Supplemental Material and Open Science Form: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21569040.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariam El Amin
- Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Georgia, Athens
| | - James C. Borders
- Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teacher College, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Elaine Kearney
- Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, MA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Korom M, Catalina Camacho M, Ford A, Taha H, Scheinost D, Spann M, Vaughn KA. An Opportunity to Increase Collaborative Science in Fetal, Infant, and Toddler Neuroimaging. Biol Psychiatry 2023; 93:864-866. [PMID: 35987717 PMCID: PMC10723778 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
The field of fetal, infant, and toddler (FIT) neuroimaging research—including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy, among others—offers pioneering insights into early brain development and has grown in popularity over the past 2 decades. In broader neuroimaging research, multisite collaborative projects, data sharing, and open-source code have increasingly become the norm, fostering big data, consensus standards, and rapid knowledge transfer and development. Given the aforementioned benefits, along with recent initiatives from funding agencies to support multisite and multimodal FIT neuroimaging studies, the FIT field now has the opportunity to establish sustainable, collaborative, and open science practices. By combining data and resources, we can tackle the most pressing issues of the FIT field, including small effect sizes, replicability problems, generalizability issues, and the lack of field standards for data collection, processing, and analysis—together. Thus, the goals of this commentary are to highlight some of the potential barriers that have waylaid these efforts and to discuss the emerging solutions that have the potential to revolutionize how we work together to study the developing brain early in life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Korom
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
| | - M Catalina Camacho
- Division of Biology and Biomedical Sciences (Neurosciences), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Aiden Ford
- Neuroscience Program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Hana Taha
- Children's Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
| | - Dustin Scheinost
- Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Marisa Spann
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Kelly A Vaughn
- Children's Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ali I, Burton J, Tranfield MW. Assessing the publishing priorities and preferences among STEM researchers at a large R1 institution. Heliyon 2023; 9:e16316. [PMID: 37229162 PMCID: PMC10205490 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023] Open
Abstract
The cost of academic publishing has increased substantially despite the ease with which information can be shared on the web. Open Access publishing is a key mechanism for amplifying research access, inclusivity, and impact. Despite this, shifting to a free-to-read publishing environment requires navigating complex barriers that vary by career status and publishing expectations. In this article, we investigate the motivations and preferences of researchers situated within our large research institution as a case study for publishing attitudes at similar institutions. We surveyed the publishing priorities and preferences of researchers at various career stages in STEM fields as they relate to openness, data practices, and assessment of research impact. Our results indicate that publishing preferences, data management experience and research impact assessment vary by career status and departmental approaches to promotion. We find that open access publishing is widely appreciated regardless of career status, but financial limitations and publishing expectations were common barriers to publishing in Open Access journals. Our findings shed light on publishing attitudes and preferences among researchers at a major R1 research institution, and offer insight into advocacy strategies that incentivize open access publishing.
Collapse
|
4
|
Cole NL, Reichmann S, Ross-Hellauer T. Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2023; 10:221460. [PMID: 36756064 PMCID: PMC9890123 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221460] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
Open Research aims to make research more accessible, transparent, reproducible, shared and collaborative. Doing so is meant to democratize and diversify access to knowledge and knowledge production, and ensure that research is useful outside of academic contexts. Increasing equity is therefore a key aim of the Open Research movement, yet mounting evidence demonstrates that the practices of Open Research are implemented in ways that undermine this. In response, we convened a diverse community of researchers, research managers and funders to co-create actionable recommendations for supporting the equitable implementation of Open Research. Using a co-creative modified Delphi method, we generated consensus-driven recommendations that address three key problem areas: the resource-intensive nature of Open Research, the high cost of article processing charges, and obstructive reward and recognition practices at funders and research institutions that undermine the implementation of Open Research. In this paper, we provide an overview of these issues, a detailed description of the co-creative process, and present the recommendations and the debates that surrounded them. We discuss these recommendations in relation to other recently published ones and conclude that implementing ours requires 'global thinking' to ensure that a systemic and inclusive approach to change is taken.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicki Lisa Cole
- Open and Reproducible Research Group, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
- Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria
| | - Stefan Reichmann
- Open and Reproducible Research Group, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
| | - Tony Ross-Hellauer
- Open and Reproducible Research Group, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
- Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Naaman K, Grant S, Kianersi S, Supplee L, Henschel B, Mayo-Wilson E. Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2023; 10:221093. [PMID: 36756061 PMCID: PMC9890101 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Naaman
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- School of Education, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Sean Grant
- HEDCO Institute for Evidence-Based Educational Practice, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
- Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University-Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Sina Kianersi
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Beate Henschel
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Evans TR, Branney P, Clements A, Hatton E. Improving evidence-based practice through preregistration of applied research: Barriers and recommendations. Account Res 2023; 30:88-108. [PMID: 34396837 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1969233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
Preregistration is the practice of publicly publishing plans on central components of the research process before access to, or collection, of data. Within the context of the replication crisis, open science practices like preregistration have been pivotal in facilitating greater transparency in research. However, such practices have been applied nearly exclusively to basic academic research, with rare consideration of the relevance to applied and consultancy-based research. This is particularly problematic as such research is typically reported with very low levels of transparency and accountability despite being disseminated as influential gray literature to inform practice. Evidence-based practice is best served by an appreciation of multiple sources of quality evidence, thus the current review considers the potential of preregistration to improve both the accessibility and credibility of applied research toward more rigorous evidence-based practice. The current three-part review outlines, first, the opportunities of preregistration for applied research, and second, three barriers - practical challenges, stakeholder roles, and the suitability of preregistration. Last, this review makes four recommendations to overcome these barriers and maximize the opportunities of preregistration for academics, industry, and the structures they are held within - changes to preregistration templates, new types of templates, education and training, and recognition and structural changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Peter Branney
- School of Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
| | - Andrew Clements
- School of Psychological, Social and Behavioural Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Ella Hatton
- School of Psychology and Social Science, Arden University, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Akdeniz E, Borschewski KE, Breuer J, Voronin Y. Sharing social media data: The role of past experiences, attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control. Front Big Data 2023; 5:971974. [PMID: 36726996 PMCID: PMC9885192 DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2022.971974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2022] [Accepted: 12/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Social media data (SMD) have become an important data source in the social sciences. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the experiences and practices of researchers working with SMD in their research and gain insights into researchers' sharing behavior and influencing factors for their decisions. To achieve these aims, we conducted a survey study among researchers working with SMD. The questionnaire covered different topics related to accessing, (re)using, and sharing SMD. To examine attitudes toward data sharing, perceived subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, we used questions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). We employed a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. The results of the qualitative analysis show that the main reasons for not sharing SMD were that sharing was not considered or needed, as well as legal and ethical challenges. The quantitative analyses reveal that there are differences in the relative importance of past sharing and reuse experiences, experienced challenges, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control as predictors of future SMD sharing intentions, depending on the way the data should be shared (publicly, with restricted access, or upon personal request). Importantly, the TPB variables have predictive power for all types of SMD sharing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esra Akdeniz
- Data Services for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany,*Correspondence: Esra Akdeniz ✉
| | - Kerrin Emilia Borschewski
- Data Services for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany
| | - Johannes Breuer
- Survey Data Curation, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany,Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS), GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany
| | - Yevhen Voronin
- Data Services for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Strømme CB, Lane AK, Halbritter AH, Law E, Nater CR, Nilsen EB, Boutouli GD, Egelkraut DD, Telford RJ, Vandvik V, Cotner SH. Close to open-Factors that hinder and promote open science in ecology research and education. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0278339. [PMID: 36542605 PMCID: PMC9770360 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The Open Science (OS) movement is rapidly gaining traction among policy-makers, research funders, scientific journals and individual scientists. Despite these tendencies, the pace of implementing OS throughout the scientific process and across the scientific community remains slow. Thus, a better understanding of the conditions that affect OS engagement, and in particular, of how practitioners learn, use, conduct and share research openly can guide those seeking to implement OS more broadly. We surveyed participants at an OS workshop hosted by the Living Norway Ecological Data Network in 2020 to learn how they perceived OS and its importance in their research, supervision and teaching. Further, we wanted to know what OS practices they had encountered in their education and what they saw as hindering or helping their engagement with OS. The survey contained scaled-response and open-ended questions, allowing for a mixed-methods approach. We obtained survey responses from 60 out of 128 workshop participants (47%). Responses indicated that usage and sharing of open data and code, as well as open access publication, were the most frequent OS practices. Only a minority of respondents reported having encountered OS in their formal education. A majority also viewed OS as less important in their teaching than in their research and supervisory roles. The respondents' suggestions for what would facilitate greater OS engagement in the future included knowledge, guidelines, and resources, but also social and structural support. These are aspects that could be strengthened by promoting explicit implementation of OS practices in higher education and by nurturing a more inclusive and equitable OS culture. We argue that incorporating OS in teaching and learning of science can yield substantial benefits to the research community, student learning, and ultimately, to the wider societal objectives of science and higher education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian B. Strømme
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- * E-mail:
| | - A. Kelly Lane
- Department of Biology Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America
| | - Aud H. Halbritter
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Elizabeth Law
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway
- Working Conservation Consulting, Fernie, BC, Canada
| | - Chloe R. Nater
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway
| | | | - Grace D. Boutouli
- Department of Biology Teaching and Learning, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America
| | | | | | - Vigdis Vandvik
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sehoya H. Cotner
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kelly S, Johnson SL. The next stage in Biology Open's support for early-career researchers. Biol Open 2022; 11:284133. [PMID: 36416384 PMCID: PMC9836079 DOI: 10.1242/bio.059725] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Kelly
- Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK,Editor in Chief at BiO ()
| | - Sophie L. Johnson
- Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Schiavone SR, Vazire S. Reckoning With Our Crisis: An Agenda for the Field of Social and Personality Psychology. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 2022; 18:710-722. [PMID: 36301777 DOI: 10.1177/17456916221101060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The replication crisis and credibility revolution in the 2010s brought a wave of doubts about the credibility of social and personality psychology. We argue that as a field, we must reckon with the concerns brought to light during this critical decade. How the field responds to this crisis will reveal our commitment to self-correction. If we do not take the steps necessary to address our problems and simply declare the crisis to be over or the problems to be fixed without evidence, we risk further undermining our credibility. To fully reckon with this crisis, we must empirically assess the state of the field to take stock of how credible our science actually is and whether it is improving. We propose an agenda for metascientific research, and we review approaches to empirically evaluate and track where we are as a field (e.g., analyzing the published literature, surveying researchers). We describe one such project (Surveying the Past and Present State of Published Studies in Social and Personality Psychology) underway in our research group. Empirical evidence about the state of our field is necessary if we are to take self-correction seriously and if we hope to avert future crises.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Simine Vazire
- Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Pizzolato D, Dierickx K. Reverse mentoring to enhance research integrity climate. BMC Res Notes 2022; 15:209. [PMID: 35715865 PMCID: PMC9205068 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06098-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Mentors have the responsibility to guide their mentees through academic and scientific challenges that they might encounter during their educational and professional development. In embodying the role of mentors, senior academics are also expected to transmit knowledge and competencies on the topic of research integrity to their junior colleagues. However, senior academics do not always succeed in transmitting responsible research practices and enhancing the research integrity climate. The implementation of the concept of reverse mentoring can be an option to overcome this issue. Different from traditional mentoring, the flow of information is reversed, going from juniors to seniors. Reverse mentoring, as a developmental partnership between mentees and mentors, has been already used successfully within the private sector and in medical education. In times in which most universities invest resources in organizing dedicated research integrity trainings for PhD candidates and junior researchers, it would be valuable to consider reverse mentoring for fostering responsible research practices and enhancing the research integrity climate. PhD candidates and junior researchers can join and fully contribute to the endeavor of enhancing the research integrity climate by co-creating, together with their senior colleagues a new-shared learning environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pizzolato
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000 Louvain, Belgium
| | - Kris Dierickx
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000 Louvain, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Pownall M, Talbot CV, Henschel A, Lautarescu A, Lloyd KE, Hartmann H, Darda KM, Tang KTY, Carmichael-Murphy P, Siegel JA. Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers. PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN QUARTERLY 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/03616843211029255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anna Henschel
- School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Alexandra Lautarescu
- Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
- Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, Centre for the Developing Brain, School of Biomedical Imaging and Medical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Kelly E. Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Helena Hartmann
- Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Kohinoor M. Darda
- Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
- Department of Cognitive Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | - Jaclyn A. Siegel
- Department of Psychology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|