Field Of Pediatric Psychology Research Articles

Pragmatic Health Assessment in Early Childhood: The PROMIS® of Developmentally Based Measurement for Pediatric Psychology.

To illustrate the integration of developmental considerations into person-reported outcome (PRO) measurement development for application in early childhood pediatric psychology. Combining the state-of-the-science Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) mixed-methods instrument development approach with considerations from developmental measurement science, we developed 12 PROMIS early childhood (PROMIS EC) parent report measures to evaluate common mental, social, and physical health outcomes for ages 1-5. Through this interdisciplinary effort, we identified key considerations for early childhood PROs that enable reliable and valid assessment within the real-world constraints of clinical care settings. Four key considerations are highlighted as key to this process: (a) Engage diverse content experts to identify meaningful and relevant constructs; (b) Balance salient features for early childhood with lifespan coherence of constructs; (c) Emphasize observable features across the typical/atypical spectrum; and (d) Ensure feasibility and relevancy for clinical and research application. Each consideration is discussed using exemplars from the PROMIS EC measurement development process. PROMIS EC provides an illustration of how well-established PRO measures for youth can be adapted for younger children by incorporating developmental considerations. This process and resulting key considerations provide clinicians and researchers in the field of pediatric psychology with guidance for adapting PROs to early childhood, enabling critical continuity in domains of high salience to pediatric psychologists.

A Primer on Mixed Methods for Pediatric Researchers.

To provide a primer on conducting and analyzing mixed methods research studies, and to provide guidance on the write-up of mixed methods research. A question and answer format is used to provide an overview of mixed methods research study designs, tasks and considerations related to conducting and analyzing mixed methods studies, and recommendations for the write-up of results for mixed methods studies. Individuals who conduct mixed methods research are encouraged to delineate the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods features of the research and how these features fit with the overall study questions. Research teams will benefit from including individuals with expertise in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. Data integration should be a central component to the analysis and write-up of mixed methods research. Increasing the use of mixed methods research in the field of pediatric psychology will contribute to advances in observational studies with children and families, intervention development and evaluation, and creation of new tools and assessments that aim to optimize child and family health outcomes.

Commentary: Reflecting on the History of Family Systems Work Within the Field of Pediatric Psychology.

Commentary: Reflecting on the History of Family Systems Work Within the Field of Pediatric Psychology.

The Pivotal Role of Pediatric Psychology in Chronic Pain: Opportunities for Informing and Promoting New Research and Intervention in a Shifting Healthcare Landscape.

In the context of new efforts to formulate more comprehensive diagnostic and treatment processes for chronic pain conditions, this review aims to provide an overview of some of the most salient developments in the diagnosis and clinical treatment of pediatric chronic pain and to delineate the current and future role of clinical pediatric psychologists in these efforts. The acceptance and promotion of the multidisciplinary approach to pediatric pain management has had an especially significant impact on the field of pediatric psychology. Though chronic pain was historically conceptualized as a biomedical problem, psychology is increasingly viewed as a routine, integral, and component part of treatment. With this evolving biopsychosocial paradigm, pediatric psychology is poised to help shape the development of this field, contributing to emerging conceptual and diagnostic frameworks via consultation, research, clinical care, and education. This review discusses the role of pediatric psychologists as collaborators in emerging diagnostic and assessment frameworks, leaders in pain-related research, drivers of clinical care, and educators for providers, patients, and the lay public. With increased opportunities to enhance the conceptualization and treatment of pediatric pain, pediatric psychologists have an important role to play in reducing the prevalence and persistence of pediatric pain.

Dennis "Denny" Drotar (1945-2017).

Presents an obituary for Dennis "Denny" Drotar (1945-2017). Denny was a brilliant and revered scholar who authored more than 350 papers, eight books, and many chapters that serve as a foundation for the field of pediatric psychology. Editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology from 2007-2013, he served as president of the Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP), Division 54 of the American Psychological Association (APA), and was the first psychologist to serve as president of the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. Denny spent his career in academic medical centers, including Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, and Boston Children's Hospital. He "semi-retired" in 2014 but continued to be involved in research and training until his death. (PsycINFO Database Record

Adaptive intervention designs in pediatric psychology: The promise of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials of pediatric interventions.

This article summarizes the utility of multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) processes in the development of empirically derived adaptive interventions (AIs). Recent empirical evidence suggests that SMART designs conducted within the context of a MOST framework can be used for building and optimizing AIs and may lead to better clinical care. SMART designs help optimize AIs by determining the best sequencing of decision rules. However, despite their growing relevance, MOSTs and SMARTs are relatively underutilized in the development of pediatric interventions. MOST and SMART designs can be used for developing efficient and cost-effective AIs. Intervention research within the field of pediatric psychology may benefit from incorporating these designs.

Topical Review: Building Competency: Professional Skills for Pediatric Psychologists in Integrated Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVES: In the midst of large-scale changes across our nation's health care system, including the Affordable Care Act and Patient-Centered Medical Home initiatives, integrated primary care models afford important opportunities for those in the field of pediatric psychology. Despite the extensive and growing attention, this subspecialty has received in recent years, a comprehensive set of core professional competencies has not been established. METHODS: A subset of an Integrated Primary Care Special Interest Group used two well-established sets of core competencies in integrated primary care and pediatric psychology as a basis to develop a set of integrated pediatric primary care-specific behavioral anchors. CONCLUSIONS: The current manuscript describes these behavioral anchors and their development in the context of professional training as well as with regard to Triple Aim goals and securing psychology's role in integrated pediatric primary care settings.

Trauma and Child Health: An Introduction to the Special Issue.

Potentially traumatic events are common occurrences that can lead to significant psychological distress, and yet, there has been remarkably little attention to the associations between traumatic events and youth's physical health. The articles contained in this Special Issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology represent a significant step forward in the establishment of "Trauma and Child Health" as a major area of study within the field of pediatric psychology. In this introductory article, we briefly describe several contextual issues that may help to set the stage for the articles contained in this Special Issue. These contextual issues include the most common types of traumatic events that are studied, as well as the features of traumatic events that may affect physical and mental health outcomes, such as whether casualties or interpersonal violence is involved.

Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology: Parsimonious Interventions, Serendipity, and Collaboration.

When I graduated from high school in 1966, the field of pediatric psychology did not exist. In fact, the term “pediatric psychology” was not coined until 1967 when Logan Wright wrote his groundbreaking article in the American Psychologist (Wright, 1967). I began the University of California at Berkeley wanting to be a dentist, but after a conspicuous lack of passion for organic chemistry, I went to the UC Counseling Center for advice about a change of major. After taking a Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the counselor suggested “psychology.” After taking a myriad of psychology courses, I discovered my passion. In fact, the experience with the counseling center convinced me to get my PhD in Counseling Psychology so I could help college students discover their passion. While attending the Counseling Psychology doctoral program at the University of Texas, I took several practica at the University of Texas Counseling Center and discovered to my dismay that, at least in the early 1970s, the kinds of presenting problems confronting college students (e.g., what to major in, dealing with parents, dating concerns) were not particularly challenging. This motivated me to do a predoctoral internship in a medical setting. I anticipated that I would be working with adults because I had little child training, but serendipity provided an opportunity to work with children and families. Although I had still not heard of the field of pediatric psychology, I was fortunate in 1974–1975 to obtain an internship specializing in pediatric psychology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (UOHSC). This was one of the few training programs in existence at that time. Pediatric psychology was a new field, but I had the “dream team” of Logan Wright, Diane Willis, and Gene Walker as my primary supervisors. Logan was one of the three original cofounders of the Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) in 1969, Diane was the first editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology published in 1976, and Gene, a consummate behavioral psychologist, directly influenced and led the pediatric psychology program at the UOHSC for >20 years. My internship jumpstarted my future as a professional psychologist, which included beginning primary care pediatric psychology programs at Henry Ford Hospital (1975–1980) and Scott and White Hospital (1980–1995), joining a tertiary care pediatric psychology program at St. Louis Children’s Hospital (1996–1998), and eventually working with doctoral training in a school psychology program at Texas A&M University (1998–present). I will always consider myself first and foremost a “pediatric psychologist.” The field of pediatric psychology is diverse and multifaceted. At the same time, my experiences in pediatric psychology were predominantly in primary care outpatient pediatric clinics doing evaluation and treatment that would not be dissimilar to those activities of a clinical child psychologist. Pediatricians often would refer patients to me for common psychological issues pertaining to development, behavior, or learning. Although I had the occasional chronic illness referral, inpatient consultation, or emergency room referral, most of my time was spent in an outpatient setting. I was doing integrated care and primary care long before it was commonly used term. As I continued my practice in pediatric psychology, I had no idea how it would evolve. For the past 16 years, I have been teaching in the school psychology program within the Educational Psychology Department at Texas A&M University, which is not a traditional pediatric psychology position. At the same time, there is a long-standing tradition of school psychologists interfacing with pediatric settings (Power, DuPaul, Shapiro, & Parrish, 1995). Half of my effort is as a faculty member in an APA-accredited School Psychology program teaching child psychotherapy, assessment, and psychopathology, while the other half of my effort is as Director of the Counseling and Assessment Clinic (CAC), the training clinic for the School Psychology and Counseling Psychology training programs at Texas A&M. What do these two positions have to do with pediatric psychology? As a faculty member, I mentor doctoral students who might want to pursue a pediatric psychology career and am the faculty advisor for outside practica at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston), Texas Children’s Hospital (Houston), Cook Children’s Hospital (Ft. Worth), and Dallas Children’s Hospital. As a result, during the past 10 years, the School Psychology program has placed 30% of its predoctoral interns in pediatric psychology placements (e.g., Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Boston Children’s Hospital, Stanford Children’s Hospital, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Oregon Health Sciences University, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Children’s Hospital of Michigan). As Director of the CAC, our psychotherapy clinic is located off-campus in a federally qualified community health center. This setting provides the School Psychology students with the opportunity to consult with physicians and other personnel from the medical side of the clinic.

Models of Resilience: Developing Psychosocial Interventions for Parents of Children with Chronic Health Conditions

Research regarding family adaption and resilience in children with chronic health conditions has resulted in the development of a number of theoretical models and data‐driven psychosocial interventions in the field of pediatric psychology, some of which may not be well known in the field of family science. These models incorporate family systems theory and multiple resiliency factors within their framework to better describe the complex process of adaptation and subsequent adjustment outcomes. In this article, three contemporary resilience models within pediatric psychology are briefly reviewed and discussed. The development of a psychosocial intervention targeting uncertainty management for caregivers of children with cancer and the preliminary results are also presented as an exemplar of how such models may utilized to build interventions. Finally, the implications of the authors' findings and future research directions involving psychosocial interventions for families of children with chronic health conditions are discussed.

Commentary: The Wright Ross Salk Award: Reflection on a strong foundation leading to the robust future of pediatric psychology.

I feel grateful and privileged to receive the 2014 Society of Pediatric Psychology Wright Ross Salk Distinguished Service Award, named for three legendary pediatric psychologists who had the foresight to create the Society for Pediatric Psychology (SPP). It is my intent here to honor their contributions and highlight the gifts I have received through my membership in and affiliation with colleagues, friends, students, and trainees of Division 54. Logan Wright, Dorothea Ross, and Lee Salk are luminaries in the field of pediatric psychology. In fact, Dr. Ross received the SPP Distinguished Contributions Award in 1979, before I was even aware of pediatric psychology and before I had begun graduate school. As noted at that time, ‘‘She was one of the three who founded the Society in 1968, putting her great and sustained energy into this task’’ (Award Announcement, News and Notes, 1979). Dr. Ross was not able to attend the award presentation, but her remarks were read to the members of the Society in attendance, and her acceptance speech was reprinted in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (1979), in which she noted: ‘‘I feel that the great strides made by the Society in a little over a decade should be numbered among the advances in pediatrics cited in connection with the International Year of the Child.’’ She went on to describe the ‘‘air of vigor and resiliency about the fledgling Society that foretold success, productivity, and longevity’’ and ‘‘our jubilation when the membership roster reached 100’’ (now at 1,600 members). Logan Wright was a pioneering founder of SPP and served as the Society’s first President in 1969. These organizational contributions occurred while he was a faculty member in pediatric psychology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Dr. Wright wrote the first seminal article about pediatric psychology, published in the American Psychologist in 1967: ‘‘Pediatric Psychology: A Role Model.’’ His writing about training for pediatricians paved the way for the pediatric subspecialty of developmental and behavioral pediatrics, physicians who continue to be primary collaborators with pediatric psychologists across the country. Following the American Psychologist article, Wright chaired the Committee on Pediatric Psychology as a subgroup of Division 12’s Section of Clinical Child Psychology, with both Dorothea Ross and Lee Salk as members of that committee. It is noteworthy that the founder of pediatric psychology also served as the President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1986. Dr. Lee Salk, brother ofNobel Prize recipient (for the polio vaccine), Jonas Salk, served as the Director of Pediatric Psychology at Cornell University Medical Center. In a 1974 interview with People Magazine, he was described as ‘‘. . .one of America’s most admired practitioners in the contentious field of child psychology.’’ He was one of the founders and President of the Division of Child, Youth, and Family Services (Division 37) and awarded the first Distinguished Contributions Award from SPP. Dr. Salk was well known for televisionand print media interviewsduring the1960’s, which provided publicity for pediatric psychology and facilitated funding resources. The first meeting of the Society was held at the1968SanFranciscoAPAConvention,with theorganization initially referred to as the Society FOR Pediatric Psychology, eventually becoming the Society OF Pediatric Psychology. Each of these individuals played a leadership role in the establishment, promotion, and growth of SPP, now a thriving independent division of APA. This legacy of ‘‘distinguished service’’ is exemplified through the spirit of the SPP’s Wright Ross Salk Award, with this history being carried forward by other pediatric psychologists who continue to serve the Society and its members. A review of dictionaries highlighted various definitions of ‘‘distinguished service’’ including ‘‘characterized by excellence or distinction; noble or dignified in conduct or

Adding Practical Tools to Our Toolbox: Introduction to the Special Issue on Quantitative Methodologies

The most recent special issue in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology devoted to methodologies was published more than a decade ago (Noll, 2002). Several articles in that issue focused explicitly on quantitative methodologies. These articles were well-received by and influential within the specific discipline of pediatric psychology and the broader academic community (Aylward, Roberts, Colombo, & Steele, 2008). Owing to, in no small part, the 2002 special issue (Noll, 2002), the field of Pediatric Psychology has continued to mature with regard to methodological and statistical sophistication. Since the 2002 special issue, several important articles on quantitative methodologies were published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. These articles include practical coverage of topics such as growth curve modeling (Delucia & Pitts, 2006), analysis of count data (Karazsia & van Dulmen, 2008), effect sizes (Durlak, 2009), structural equation modeling (Nelson, Aylward, & Steele, 2008), and time-window sequential analysis (MacLarenChorney, Garcia, Berlin, Bakeman, & Kain, 2010). This special issue can be viewed as a supplement to such works. Another sign of the field embracing quantitative methods is the recently formed PRISM Special Interest Group, whose members have interests in Pediatric Research and Innovative Statistical Methodologies (Karazsia & Berlin, 2013). As part of our roles as PRISM SIG Co-Chairs, we believed it was time for another issue focused on accessible introductions to quantitative methods that have relevance to pediatric psychologists. With this in mind, our charges to authors in this issue were as follows: (a) write articles as a practical resource or guide, using straightforward language that will promote adoption of techniques by applied researchers; (b) include practical illustrations of methods, preferably with realworld data; and (c) include annotated syntax where appropriate to supplement the illustration. Invited authors for this issue not only answered this call, but they went above and beyond to present complex topics in ways that will resonate with pediatric scholars. The enthusiasm that authors brought to their work is illustrated in the titles. Who, other than Todd Little, would title an article about missing data ‘‘On the Joys of Missing data . . . ’’ (emphasis added; Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore, 2014). While many scholars may dread the issue of missing data, Little, Jorgensen, Lang, and Moore (2014) illustrate proactive methodological strategies that can minimize or prevent the problem when considered before data collection commences. Another example is Eric Youngstrom’s calling the field to ‘‘ROC’’ (Receiver Operator Characteristic) with him (Youngstrom, 2014, ‘‘We are Ready to ROC’’). In his coverage of ROC analyses, Youngstrom (2014) illustrates the intricate relations between real-world issues faced by practicing clinicians, the questions researchers ask, and the quantitative methods that can help answer those questions and yield clinically relevant results. Two articles in this issue serve as complements to recent calls within the field for more single-subject studies (e.g., Rapoff, 2010) by introducing quantitative approaches to analyzing data from such designs (Cohen, Feinstein, Masuda, & Vowles, 2014; Cushing, 2014). These articles also highlight the relevance of pediatric research within real-world clinical practice settings. Cohen, Feinstein, Masuda, and Vowles (2014) wrestle with the fact that

Commentary: Putting Tools in Context: How Pediatric Psychologists Can Leverage Science to Improve Clinical Care

In 2001, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) identified six aims for changing the health care system, calling specifically for safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care (Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001). A decade later, another IHI report reiterated this need, stating that ‘‘we need advances in health care delivery to match the advances in medical science so the benefits of that science may reach everyone equally’’ (para. 5; Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2011). In no discipline does the IHI’s call to arms resonate more clearly than within the field of pediatric psychology. As pediatric psychologists, we understand that each patient exists within a unique context. In our clinical interactions, we strive to identify, appreciate, and address this individual context in delivering interventions. Yet, as eloquently put by Cohen, Feinstein, Masuda, and Vowles (2014) in this issue, the ‘‘psychology research literature is dominated by group-aggregate data, which provide the predominate evidence-base to inform our work with individual patients’’ (p. 124). Not only does group-aggregate data typically focus on the mean-level, or average, experience of the group, but the designs that give rise to these data often are tightly constrained to minimize variation within the sample, thus bearing little relationship to the experience of seeing an actual patient within a clinical setting. Therein lies the widely acknowledged science–practice gap. The IHI’s call to arms is particularly relevant in light of this special issue on quantitative methods in pediatric psychology, as many of the methods highlighted within this collection of papers focus on understanding and embracing individual variation within a population to propel the field forward in a more unified way. Some, like Youngstrom’s (2014) example of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve utility in the development of clinical screening tools, have a clear and direct application to clinical practice. Others, like Cushing’s, Walters’, and Hoffman’s (2014) discussion of aggregated N-of-1 randomized controlled trials, showcase strategies for increasing external validity or generalizability to a clinical population while maintaining scientific rigor. Finally, papers such as the two-part introduction to latent variable mixture modeling offered by Berlin and colleagues preserve the traditional group-aggregate approach, but with an eye toward using naturally occurring variation among individuals to understand more about the population of interest and how relationships change based on variables that might previously have been considered extraneous or even statistical noise to be avoided (Berlin, Parra, & Williams, 2014; Berlin, Williams, & Parra, 2014). In our own work on chronic abdominal pain, we have found that focusing on individual variation in research design and analysis has allowed for identification of clinically meaningful relationships and subgroups that may help direct more targeted and efficient treatment (see Schurman et al., 2008, and Schurman, Kessler, Anderson, & Gu, 2013, for relevant examples). The unifying thread in this collection of papers is the recognition that individual variation is not the enemy, but instead an asset to be considered in the design and analysis of our scientific work. The timing of this message is right in a variety of ways. As suggested by Karazsia, Berlin, Armstrong, Janicke, and Darling (2014), the maturation of our field demands that we look beyond the simple question of ‘‘What works?’’ to ‘‘How, why, when, and for whom does it work?’’ Mobile, wireless, and even automated data collection methods allow for rich data capture with minimal participant burden to support more complex, person-centered analyses. Technological advancements have placed many

Pediatric Psychologist Use of Adherence Assessments and Interventions

To document current clinical practices for medical regimen adherence assessment and intervention in the field of pediatric psychology. 113 members of the Society of Pediatric Psychology completed an anonymous online survey that assessed use of adherence assessments and interventions in clinical practice, barriers and facilitators to their use, and preferred resources for obtaining information on adherence assessments and interventions. Respondents reported using a range of adherence assessment and intervention strategies, some of which are evidence-based. Barriers to implementing these clinical strategies included time constraints and lack of familiarity with available clinical tools. Respondents reported that education about effective clinical tools would facilitate their use of adherence assessments and interventions. Future research and clinical efforts in adherence should consider developing practical tools for clinical practice, making accessible resources to promote dissemination of these tools, and increase understanding of clinician implementation of adherence assessments and interventions.

New Guidelines for Publishing Review Articles in JPP: Systematic Reviews and Topical Reviews

Review articles serve an important purpose in synthesizing knowledge in the field of pediatric psychology, highlighting new topic areas, innovative concepts, and contemporary issues in the field. In the arena of treatment, a high-quality systematic review may answer questions about the efficacy of psychological treatments for specific pediatric problems by synthesizing quantitative results from relevant studies about specific interventions. As new treatments are developed in the field and new conditions are being tackled with pediatric psychology interventions, efficacy will need to be established. Such results may inform pediatric psychologists and other health providers about which interventions to use. Moreover, such results may guide decision making concerning whether the strength of the evidence warrants that a specific intervention for a particular childhood medical condition be made available to patients and financed. Another important benefit of careful systematic reviews is that they may reveal gaps in the evidence base or challenging methodological problems that may lead to advances or improvements in future research. JPP has published systematic reviews of clinical interventions in pediatric psychology (e.g., Cushing & Steele, 2010; Uman, Chambers, McGrath, & Kisely, 2008) as well as reviews of the effects of pediatric conditions on children’s adjustment (e.g., Pinquart & Shen, 2011), and of the evidence base for assessments used in pediatric psychology (see Cohen et al., 2008). JPP will continue its emphasis on evidence-based practice in pediatric psychology through publication of review articles. However, as mentioned by Lavigne (2008), the process of translating research into practice in pediatric psychology is difficult. In particular, we recognize that our processes need to become increasingly sophisticated to deal effectively with the tremendous change that has occurred over the past decade in evidence-based medicine and the scholarship of review articles. Systematic reviews, defined below, are considered the highest form of evidence. But, systematic reviews must be performed using rigorous review methodology to deliver on this promise. Following the lead taken by many major medical and social science journals, JPP will accept only systematic reviews beginning this year and discontinue its practice of publishing narrative literature reviews. JPP will also introduce a new type of submission called a Topical Review.

Editorial: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology—The Next Five Years

I am delighted to be the new Editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP)! Because of the work of so many superb former editors, we begin 2013 with a healthy and vibrant journal, with so much to look forward to in the coming years. I am particularly grateful to Dennis Drotar and his editorial team for handing over a journal that has a high rate of submissions, a competitive rejection rate, and an excellent ‘‘time to first editorial decision.’’ I hope to continue to maintain this level of quality, while continuing to publish methodologically strong research articles. I am also pleased that the following individuals have agreed to be Associate Editors for the journal: Dean Beebe, John Lavigne, Tonya Palermo, Lori Stark, Ric Steele, and Tim Wysocki. We have already been working together as a team for a year (we began reviewing all newly submitted papers in January 2012), and I am delighted to have all of them on board. Also, I am particularly fortunate that Susan Wood has agreed to continue to serve as the Editorial Assistant for the journal. As any developmentally oriented scholar knows, healthy development consists of continuity and change. Applying these concepts to JPP, I seek to retain the strong tradition that JPP has established by continuing to highlight the best research in our field, including first-rate systematic reviews of such research (see new initiative in this area later in the text). In the context of such continuity, I also seek to help JPP grow in new directions, increasing its appeal and usefulness to the readership as well as its impact on the larger field of pediatric psychology. In this editorial, I provide my goal-oriented 5-year plan for JPP. I hope that when I write my closing editorial at the end of 2017, we will have accomplished these goals. Goal 1: Publish on Topical, Innovative, and Contemporary Issues in Pediatric Psychology

Editorial: Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology II

Beginning with this issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP), we are re-activating the Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology series. From 2000 to 2002, during Anne Kazak’s editorial term, four ‘‘pioneers’’ wrote articles for JPP where they reflected on their careers in pediatric psychology and their contributions to the conceptual development, research, and practice of our field (Drotar, 2001; Mesibov, 2002; Routh, 2000; Walker, 2000). Because these articles serve an important historical and archival function for the Society of Pediatric Psychology, it became clear that this would be a valuable series to reactivate. Thus, we asked Phyllis Magrab to submit an article for this series, and her contribution appears in this issue of the journal. As you read her observations of pediatric psychology from the early years of the Society and over time in the field, the importance of documenting the history and learning from such pioneering pediatric psychologists is emphasized. When we invite authors to prepare a manuscript for this series, we provide guidance via a list of potential concepts for them to consider. Specifically, we ask authors to use relevant life experiences to set the context for identifying needs or issues related to the field of pediatric psychology. We also ask them to discuss what the field was like at the time that they entered it and to reflect on how pediatric psychology has changed and what they believe to have caused such changes. One of our primary goals is for these articles to be useful to early career professionals and to those currently in training in pediatric psychology. Thus, we pose a series of training-relevant questions for ‘‘pioneers’’ to consider as they formulate their comments: What were the key milestones of your career and what decisions did you make along the way? What insights might you offer to early career professionals or those still in training as they consider what directions to pursue, settings to consider working in, or opportunities to take advantage of or avoid? How were you mentored and how did this influence how you mentor others? What lessons have you learned during your years in this field? How and in what contexts did you interact with others in the field and how did these interactions influence you? Also, discuss how interactions with those from other disciplines influenced you. What are the values you find central to your research/ practice in pediatric psychology? What are important issues that currently face our field? What are likely directions for the future? How do you hope the field will evolve over time? What needs to happen for this evolution to occur?

Commentary for Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology: Thirty-Seven Years of Research, Training, and Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology

I have spent a substantial portion of my career working in a hospital with pediatric inpatients and outpatients and, except for a recent 5-year interval mostly devoted to research, have generally spent half of my working time involved in clinical care. Consistent with that background, the theme I hope to address in this essay primarily involves what it was like to develop a clinical service early in the history of the field of pediatric psychology and how that service has evolved to the present day. To provide some context for understanding how far we have come in training pediatric psychologists, I will also discuss what the climate was like for trainees and early career clinicians in the 1970s. Finally, I will comment on the research climate then and how it has evolved, as well as how clinical work and research can inform one another over the course of a career. The Climate Surrounding Clinical Psychology and Clinical Training, Then and Now

Six Degrees of Separation: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Mentoring Relationships in Pediatric Psychology

The present study is an exploratory social network analysis of mentee-mentor relationships in the field of pediatric psychology. An online survey was distributed to members of the Division 54 Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) listserv asking them to name up to 10 psychologists from whom they had "received mentoring" and who influenced their careers. Directed network analyses were conducted to examine features of the resulting mentoring network. Participants reported receiving mentoring in a wide variety of relationships and settings. The average "degrees of separation" between individuals in the network was 5.30. : The field of pediatric psychology is interconnected with professionals learning from multiple mentors in multiple settings, extending beyond just graduate student advisors. Overall, many different mentors were listed, and there does not appear to be only one or two individuals providing the majority of mentoring within the field.

Commentary: A Call to Action to Secure the Future of Pediatric Psychology--Resonating to the Points of Rozensky and Janicke (2012)

The field of pediatric psychology has adjusted and adapted to fit the changing environment of healthcare and needs of children and their families over its history (Aylward, Bender, Graves, & Roberts, 2009). Although initially considered to have an overly narrow focus, pediatric psychology became novel and innovative in the 1960s and 1970s and ultimately developed into a creatively vibrant and productive force in research and practice in healthcare psychology. Although the field has achieved great accomplishments, there is the potential of stagnating or even being left behind if practitioners and researchers continue to exclusively maintain the ‘‘status quo’’ without further innovation. Therefore, current and rising professionals will need to focus their incredible intelligence and energies to move out of what are now the established routines and ways of doing ‘‘things’’ to become once again novel and innovative, responding to changes in health care. Rozensky and Janicke (2012) have contributed a significant vision for the future of pediatric psychology in a changing healthcare system. The significant points in this article are truly a call to action, a strategic plan as it were, for the field of practice and research in pediatric psychology. Rozensky and Janicke highlight several ripe and exciting opportunities for the field of pediatric psychology in terms of growth and expansion in light of current changes in the healthcare environment and in various other related fields and disciplines. In this commentary, we briefly attend to several of the issues raised by these visionaries as important areas for growth in the future of pediatric psychology. We have highlighted only a few of the major recommendations made by Rozensky and Janicke in order to provide the detailed discussion that each point warrants, and this selection should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list of the valuable points made in their discussion.