Neural regions associated with gain-loss frequency and average reward in older and younger adults.

Research on the biological basis of reinforcement-learning has focused on how brain regions track expected value based on average reward. However, recent work suggests that humans are more attuned to reward frequency. Furthermore, older adults are less likely to use expected values to guide choice than younger adults. This raises the question of whether brain regions assumed to be sensitive to average reward, like the medial and lateral PFC, also track reward frequency, and whether there are age-based differences. Older (60-81 years) and younger (18-30 years) adults performed the Soochow Gambling task, which separates reward frequency from average reward, while undergoing fMRI. Overall, participants preferred options that provided negative net payoffs, but frequent gains. Older adults improved less over time, were more reactive to recent negative outcomes, and showed greater frequency-related activation in several regions, including DLPFC. We also found broader recruitment of prefrontal and parietal regions associated with frequency value and reward prediction errors in older adults, which may indicate compensation. The results suggest greater reliance on average reward for younger adults than older adults.

Workplace discrimination for persons with hearing loss: Before and after the 2008 ADA Amendments Act.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with hearing loss experience unique barriers to employment frequently documented in the areas of communication and education. The purpose of this article is to contribute to extend this inquiry to the uniqueness of workplace discrimination involving persons with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated differences in allegations of workplace discrimination filed by persons with hearing loss ("Hearing") compared to those filed by persons with other physical or neurological disabilities (General Disability, or "GENDIS") before and after the enactment of the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008 Amendments). METHODS: Using secondary data collected from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System, we employ simple measures of proportion and odds ratios to describe differences between allegations derived from GENDIS and Hearing loss populations. These are population statistics, and not samples, of all allegations of discrimination reported to the EEOC through 2016. The comparisons involve Characteristics of the Charging Parties, Issues or discriminatory behaviors alleged, and closure statuses or Merit Rate of the EEOC's investigations - both before and after the 2008 Amendments. RESULTS: Following the 2008 Amendments, Charging Parties changed dramatically on age and gender status. Reasonable Accommodation, Hiring, Harassment, and employment Terms and Conditions showed unique features between groups and/or time periods. The "veracity" (confirmed truthfulness or merit) of the EEOC allegation (or Merit) rate also changed following the Amendments: higher for GENDIS; lower for Hearing. CONCLUSIONS: Possible rationale for these findings are offered, and new research questions are raised. Finally, implications for the cross-disability movement are presented.

Patterns of workplace discrimination across broad categories of disability.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to explore patterns of discrimination in relation to broad-basis categories of disability and (b) to investigate patterns of discrimination between allegations derived from charging parties with sensory impairments versus those with nonsensory impairments. Basis categories included physical, behavioral, neurological, and sensory impairments. RESEARCH METHOD: Database mining, descriptive analysis, and Pearson's chi-square analyses were utilized to compare broad-basis categories. RESULTS: In general, regardless of disability type, individuals experience the highest frequency and proportion of workplace discrimination in the areas of termination and reasonable accommodations. However, there are significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the four broader groups. CONCLUSIONS: Noteworthy differences exist regarding the experience of workplace discrimination among basis categories of disability, especially with respect to sensory impairment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Strengths based rehabilitation assessment: Adapted Inventory of Virtues and Strengths.

BACKGROUND: The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) operationalizes 24 character strengths that compose the six virtues proposed in Peterson and Seligman's classification theory. Though the utility of the VIA-IS has been demonstrated in the general population, its applicability to the study of psychosocial adaptation in rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities has been controversial. OBJECTIVE: The present study was to develop a measure of rehabilitation clients' positive traits, the Adapted Inventory of Virtues and Strengths (AIVS) designed to complement the applicability issues of the VIA-IS. METHOD: Step-by-step AIVS development procedures are presented, and the AIVS factor structure identified via factor analysis is interpreted from a psychosocial adaptation perspective and compared to the VIA-IS factor structure. RESULTS: AIVS subscales include Courage, Integrity, Practical Wisdom, Committed Action, and Emotional Transcendence. Construct validity was assessed by correlating AIVS factors with measures of resilience, life satisfaction, and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The AIVS offers a reliable framework that has clinical utility for strengths-based rehabilitation practice.

Challenges Persist Under Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act: How Can Oncology Providers Help?

PURPOSE: To determine whether the Amendments to the hallmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; effective January 2009), which provide increased access to the antidiscrimination laws for many with chronic illness, are related to changes in workplace discrimination allegations in individuals with a history of cancer. METHODS: Information collected by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was used to compare allegations of discrimination and their merit before (2001 to 2008) and after (2009 to 2011) implementation of the Amendments Act. RESULTS: Allegations related to terms of employment (eg, promotions, wages) were more likely to be filed (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.61) and determined to have merit (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.77) after implementation of the Amendments Act. Allegations related to workplace relations (eg, harassment, discipline, discharge) were also more likely to be filed post Amendments Act (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.78), although the merit of this complaint remained stable. Filing of all other allegations of discrimination (ie, hiring, reasonable accommodation, and termination) and their merit remained unchanged post Amendments Act. CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of the Amendments Act, discrimination allegations in those with a history of cancer persisted or in certain areas increased. Although prevention of workplace discrimination rests primarily with employers, the oncology care team is uniquely qualified to provide information related to residual symptoms and function that can facilitate more personalized solutions to workplace discrimination, such as successful workplace accommodations. Information is provided that can assist the oncology team in their efforts to improve work outcomes.