Several decades of ice-penetrating radar surveys of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have observed numerous widespread internal reflections. Analysis of this radiostratigraphy has produced valuable insights into ice sheet dynamics and motivates additional mapping of these reflections. Here we present a comprehensive deep radiostratigraphy of the Greenland Ice Sheet from airborne deep ice-penetrating radar data collected over Greenland by The University of Kansas between 1993 and 2013. To map this radiostratigraphy efficiently, we developed new techniques for predicting reflection slope from the phase recorded by coherent radars. When integrated along track, these slope fields predict the radiostratigraphy and simplify semiautomatic reflection tracing. Core-intersecting reflections were dated using synchronized depth-age relationships for six deep ice cores. Additional reflections were dated by matching reflections between transects and by extending reflection-inferred depth-age relationships using the local effective vertical strain rate. The oldest reflections, dating to the Eemian period, are found mostly in the northern part of the ice sheet. Within the onset regions of several fast-flowing outlet glaciers and ice streams, reflections typically do not conform to the bed topography. Disrupted radiostratigraphy is also observed in a region north of the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream that is not presently flowing rapidly. Dated reflections are used to generate a gridded age volume for most of the ice sheet and also to determine the depths of key climate transitions that were not observed directly. This radiostratigraphy provides a new constraint on the dynamics and history of the Greenland Ice Sheet.Key PointsPhase information predicts reflection slope and simplifies reflection tracingReflections can be dated away from ice cores using a simple ice flow modelRadiostratigraphy is often disrupted near the onset of fast ice flow

A series of three annual surveys of David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) at UCLA students and UCR/UCLA Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences students were administered from 2010 to 2012 to ascertain student perceptions of which anatomy pedagogy-prosection or dissection-was most valuable to them during the first year of preclinical medical education and for the entire medical school experience in general. Students were asked, "What value does gross anatomy education have in preclinical medical education?" We further asked the students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies, "Would you have preferred an anatomy curriculum like the Summer Anatomy Dissection during your first year in medical school instead of prosection?" All students who responded to the survey viewed anatomy as a highly valued part of the medical curriculum, specifically referring to four major themes: Anatomy is (1) the basis for medical understanding, (2) part of the overall medical school experience, (3) a bridge to understanding pathology and physiology, and (4) the foundation for clinical skills. Students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies surprisingly and overwhelmingly advocated for a prosection curriculum for the first year of medical school, not a dissection curriculum. Time efficiency was the dominant theme in survey responses from students who learned anatomy through prosection and then dissection. Students, regardless of whether interested in surgery/radiology or not, appreciated both pedagogies but commented that prosection was sufficient for learning basic anatomy, while dissection was a necessary experience in preparation for the anatomical medical specialties. This suggests that anatomy instruction should be integrated into the clinical years of medical education.

The construct validity of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) has yet to be investigated using a gold-standard individually administered intelligence battery. The present study used a convenience sample of 97 students to examine the respective relations between the ICAR16 and overall intelligence ( g) and the Cattell–Horn–Carroll broad abilities measured by the WAIS-IV. Large correlations were observed between the observed overall scores (rICAR16, full-scale IQ = .81, p < .001) and the CFA-estimated general factors ( r = .94, p < .001). Evidence from confirmatory factor models suggests that the ICAR letter–number Series task measures fluid reasoning, while the matrix reasoning, verbal reasoning, and three-dimensional reasoning tasks measure visual–spatial reasoning (Gv). Findings support the ICAR16 as a valid brief measure of nonverbal intelligence; however, replications in larger samples are needed.

Many psychologists are curious about incorporating computer-assisted assessments into their practices but unsure whether the benefits of this technology will outweigh perceived costs and risks. The goal of this manuscript is to summarize literature related to practical benefits of adopting computer-assisted assessments compared to the limitations of traditional, "paper-and-pencil" measures. Automation of scoring and rote administration tasks can improve the accuracy and efficiency of assessments while reducing the cognitive load placed on the examiner. These direct benefits of computer-assisted assessments also have broader implications, including the potential for broader use of assessment in psychology, higher-quality patient care and experiences, increased cost-effectiveness, and enriched training opportunities. Psychologists who do not yet use assessments in their practice can begin to incorporate assessment more easily with computerassisted assessments, and psychologists who regularly conduct assessments can improve the efficiency and quality of their assessments by prioritizing the switch to computer-assisted assessments for clinical practice and training. We offer several practical suggestions to facilitate the adoption and transition processes. Public Significance StatementComputer-assisted assessments have the potential to reduce errors and save psychologists time and effort; however, most psychologists continue to use paper-and-pencil measures. We highlight the benefits of computer-assisted assessments, including improved patient care, enhanced training experiences, and reduced costs for the broader healthcare system. We also discuss potential barriers that may prevent psychologists from using these tools and practical solutions to overcoming these obstacles.

No abstract