Summary: Three versions of the Detection Response Task (DRT) were evaluated and compared as methods to assess cognitive demand while driving. Participants performed tasks known to manipulate cognitive demand (N_Back tasks) and realworld cognitive demand tasks using the iPhone interface, Siri, while driving a simulator. The Remote DRT, the Head Mounted DRT and the Tactile DRT were all sensitive to task demands but advantages were found to using the newer versions for the assessment of cognitive distraction. This work is part of an international collaborative research effort to standardize the DRT (ISO WD17488).

No abstract

Decision makers in psychology are increasingly encouraged to know and apply the results of alreadyexisting scholarly research. In a special issue of Canadian Psychology on the use of science in psychology (see Canadian Psychology, vol. 55, issue 3), Dozois et al. (2014) and Tasca, Grenon, Fortin-Langelier, and Chyurlia (2014) described some of the barriers to evidence-based practice centred on the divide between researchers and practitioners in clinical psychology. In order to address some of these barriers, we have developed a community-university partnership in which students are trained to conduct systematic scoping reviews. The scoping reviews provide practitioners with transparent, exhaustive, and nonprescriptive landscapes of existing research relevant to their topics of interest. The performance of the model to date is assessed and recommendations are made for future development.Decision makers in psychology are increasingly encouraged to know and apply the results of already-existing scholarly research (Dozois, 2013). The hope is that evidence-based practice (EBP) will improve care and will save social and mental health services from administering inefficient and ineffective treatments (Sanders, 2010;Spring, 2007). The purpose of this commentary is to supplement some of the strategies relating to increased EBP that are articulated in the articles of Dozois et al. (2014) and Tasca, Grenon, Fortin-Langelier, and Chyurlia (2014) in a recent issue of Canadian Psychology on science in psychology (vol. 55, issue 3).Although EBP is not a new concept in clinical psychology, efforts have been made to understand barriers and to facilitate clinicians' access and use of research findings. The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Task Force defines the best available research evidence (Dozois et al., 2014) as that coming from peer-reviewed studies conducted with methods that achieve the highest internal validity. The Task Force wants to encourage practitioners to consider research findings when formulating treatment decisions but it recognizes that access to the findings may be challenging. In harmony with the concerns of the Task Force, Tasca et al. (2014) used the Theory of Planned Behaviour to uncover perceptions of clinicians that may thwart EBP. The results showed that clinicians tend to perceive a significant and functional gulf between those who create research findings and those who are expected to apply those findings. Taken together Dozois et al. (2014) and Tasca et al. (2014) illustrate a spectrum of barriers to EBP.In this commentary we present a knowledge mobilization process (Bloom, 2014) which may in part serve the aims proposed by Dozois et al. (2014) and Tasca et al. (2014). This process specifically addresses four of the barriers discussed by Tasca et al. (2014): (a) negative clinician attitudes toward research applicability and utility; (b) subjective norms in which clinicians believe that other clinicians hold the same negative attitudes toward research usefulness-feelings of comradery with fel...