The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created challenging circumstances for the physical and mental health of individuals across the United States. This commentary addresses the role of grief in mental health outcomes relating to the pandemic.

A growing body of literature indicates that the mental distress experienced by survivors of war is a function of both experienced trauma and stressful life events. However, the majority of these studies are limited in that they 1) employ models of psychological distress that emphasize underlying latent constructs and do not allow researchers to examine the unique associations between particular symptoms and various stressors; and 2) use one or more measures that were not developed for that particular context and thus may exclude key traumas, stressful life events and symptoms of psychopathology. The current study addresses both these limitations by 1) using a novel conceptual model, network analysis, which assumes that symptoms covary with each other not because they stem from a latent construct, but rather because they represent meaningful relationships between the symptoms; and 2) employing a locally developed measure of experienced trauma, stressful life problems and symptoms of psychopathology. Over the course of 2009 to 2011, 337 survivors of the Sri Lankan civil war were administered the Penn-RESIST-Peradeniya War Problems Questionnaire (PRPWPQ). Network analysis revealed that symptoms of psychopathology, problems pertaining to lack of basic needs, and social problems were central to the network relative to experienced trauma and other types of problems. After controlling for shared associations, social problems in particular were the most central, significantly more so than traumatic events and family problems. Several particular traumatic events, stressful life events and symptoms of psychopathology that were central to the network were also identified. Discussion emphasizes the utility of such network models to researchers and practitioners determining how to spend limited resources in the most impactful way possible.

Most students with autism engage in the general education (GE) setting for a majority of the school day. Though there are standards to identify the expectations for educating students with autism in the inclusive classroom, GE teachers and paraeducators report limited knowledge and self-efficacy in supporting students with autism, and both indicate a need for more formal training in autism. In the present study, the authors analyzed GE teachers’ and paraeducators’ levels of knowledge and self-efficacy prior to and following autism-focused in-service training. Participants attended an informational and a practical training in which knowledge, self-efficacy, and satisfaction were measured. Results for GE teachers and paraeducators followed similar patterns in that knowledge of autism increased significantly, but did not sustain over time. Levels of self-efficacy increased significantly following the practical training. GE teachers demonstrated higher levels of knowledge compared to paraeducators across time, while levels of self-efficacy converged between the two groups. Implications regarding training and professional development are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract