ck926

Hi all,
I have always been under the impression that it is unethical, or frowned upon (at the very least), to submit the same paper to more than one journal simultaneously. However, a professor I co-authored a paper with is encouraging me to submit it to a second journal while we wait for a decision from the first journal. This professor is very experienced and well respected so I don't want to question him, but like I said, I have always been under the impression that this is bad practice, so I was caught off guard. Is it acceptable to do this? Thanks in advance for any input! 

For me, my final gpa at my current school probally helped but I also had many years of research experience. In my opinion your overall package is more important than one specific thing. Sure your gpa and gre will be used for "weeding out" at highly ranked programs due to large number of applications. But that shouldn't stop you from applying. If your applicaton is strong in other areas (recommendation letters, GRE scores, research experience, conferences, etc.) you can still get into a school. I got into three, it's possible. 

If I'm understanding this correctly, let's say that the scenarios are all about drug use for adolescents - so one might be a vignette about drinking with friends when parents aren't home, one might be about smoking marijuana when parents aren't home, etc. - and the questions might be something like "How confident are you that you could refuse to do this action with your friends?"; "How tempted would you be to join in?"; "How difficult would it be for you to turn down your friends' offer?", etc. And then maybe your domains/factors are "confidence/self-efficacy," "temptation", "pressure/difficulty," etc. Presumably you'd have one question for each factor asked across the 9 different scenarios - so 5 items for each of 9 factors. (Or maybe some of the items feed into the same factor - it depends).
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see why you would have to account for dependency in that model, because the fact that your items are nested within scenarios doesn't seem matter. You're not expecting the answers on the 9 different items within each scenario to be more correlated within each other than the answers across the scenarios, because they are tapping into different domains/factors, right? (If you had multiple questions tapping into the same factor within each scenario, then the clustering does potentially become more of an issue. I think most scientists would ignore it, for better or for worse. You could do a multilevel CFA if you wanted, though, just to test and see the differences in your analyses.)
 
I used Stata for a similar problem; specificying CFA there was quite simple. It is set up very much like a latent variable analysis - with the factors as latent variables with paths to each item you think leads to that variable, and paths constrained to be equal. You can insert a term that makes the structure multilevel to control for the correlation within scenarios. Paths constrained to be equal would be another way to solve that problem. You could play with it a bit and see what works. I'm sure that you could do it in AMOS, but I don't use it and I don't know how. If you know R you could probably also use R to do it, and I think SAS would handle it too.

If it helps calm your fears, ANOVA is usually very robust to violations of its assumptions. Also, based on those bins I would be surprised if it's normally distributed. In university students you'll get a positive skew and in grownups you'll probably get a negative skew.

another thing that annoyed the shit out of me was when this coworker of mine telling me how poor he is and that he doesn't have any extra money (not even 10 dollars) to spare to buy a gift for our collaborator from another lab who was graduating. Not to mention, he was bragging to people that all his nuclear family members are medical doctors. 
 
Some people are just unbelievable, and you wondering why I'm always so pissed off on this site because the people I have to deal with on a daily basis 

To be bluntly honest, if you want a minimally funded PhD program in clinical psychology with a 2.6 GPA, you're f**ked. I don't even think a decent masters would accept or help you. First, consider doing something like getting a 2-year funded lab manager position before applying, although those are competitive. This can offset your grades with the best lab experience possible, with maybe even co-authorship on a publication. Second, consider moving to the location of your dream mentor, and volunteer in their lab for at least a year before applying. One reason the GPA is so important is to help paint a picture of what your capable of. If you've already worked well with the mentor, then they might look past the bad grades. Third, save yourself the headache and consider changing your career aspirations to something more feasible, such clinical mental health counseling, PsyD, or even social work. Although fundamentally different, these career areas overlap considerably with clinical psych PhD and is a plausible alternative for those with lower grades.

I would suggest looking into measures of flow; look into the work of Csikszentmihalyi. Lots of work has been done in this area by others as well, so flow measures are typically easy to find. 

It's my main (and sometimes only) food group!

coffee 

I know this may not be extremely helpful as it isn't a specific source, and I'm sure it's something you're already doing for other purposes, but what I found to be most helpful was just reading tons of journal articles. Paying close attention to the structure and flow of these papers helped me to understand what is expected as far as academic writing goes.

I know this may not be extremely helpful as it isn't a specific source, and I'm sure it's something you're already doing for other purposes, but what I found to be most helpful was just reading tons of journal articles. Paying close attention to the structure and flow of these papers helped me to understand what is expected as far as academic writing goes.

Hahaha I hope she didn't respond to you after that... oh boy, the things undergrads do these days for a better grade... 
 
Another stupid thing I overheard was during a seminar by a guest speaker (the presentation was about ocean currents in northern Pacific), one undergrad student in the audience (who clearly wasn't paying attention, I'm guessing he was attending to fulfill his class requirement on attending these seminars) suddenly interrupted the speaker and asked in his loud obnoxious voice "Is that a mountain range in France or something??"

I know it's easy to become discouraged at higher p-values, and sometimes they are meaningful, but they are not the "end all be all", so try not to get too caught up in it. Here is an article that does a great job of explaining why: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700?WT.mc_id=FBK_NPG_1402_NatureNews
 
Also keep in mind there is a difference between practical significance and statistical significance!