Search results

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Active for Life (AFL) initiative investigated how two physical activity programs for adults aged 50 and older, Active Choices (AC) and Active Living Every Day (ALED), worked in community settings. Created by researchers at Stanford University, Active Choices used lifestyle counseling and personalized telephone support to encourage older adults to be physically active. In AFL, this was a 6-month program delivered through one face-to-face meeting followed by up to eight one-on-one telephone counseling calls. Active Living Every Day, which was created by the Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics Inc., also provided lifestyle counseling to promote physical activity, but in a classroom and workbook format. During the first three years of the four-year AFL initiative, ALED was delivered as a 20-week program where participants attended weekly small group meetings, but in the last year it was shortened to 12 weekly meetings. Nine organizations received AFL grants to implement the programs during 2003-2006. Four grantees implemented the one-on-one AC model, while five implemented the group-based ALED model.

Data were collected from the AC and ALED sites for both a process and outcomes evaluation. The primary aims of the process evaluation were to (1) monitor the extent to which the grantees demonstrated fidelity to the AC and ALED models in their program implementation, (2) assess staff experiences implementing the programs, and (3) assess participants' impressions of the programs. A quasi-experimental, pre-post study design was used to assess outcomes. Primary aims of the outcomes evaluation were to evaluate the impact of AC and ALED on self-reported physical activity, and to evaluate the impact of the programs on self-reported stress, depressive symptoms, and satisfaction with body function and appearance. Secondary aims of the outcome evaluation were to (1) evaluate the impact of the programs on measures of functional fitness, (2) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity and functional fitness were moderated by participant characteristics, including age, gender, race, baseline physical activity self-efficacy, and baseline physical activity social support, and (3) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity were consistent with a mediation model for physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity social support.

The collection has 14 data files (datasets). Datasets 1-7 constitute the process evaluation data, and Datasets 8-14 the outcomes evaluation data:

Dataset 1 (AC Initial Face-to-Face Sessions Data) contains information about the initial face-to-face AC session: the format, date, and length of the session, whether the 8 steps required in the face-to-face session were completed, what was discussed between the health educator and the participant related to physical activity plans, interests, benefits, and barriers, and the health educator's progress notes. The file contains one record for each AC participant.

Dataset 2 (AC Completed Calls Data) comprises information about the completed AC calls, but does not cover the topics discussed on the calls. Recorded information about each call includes the date and length of the call, the health educator's progress notes, and whether the participant was assessed for injury, light activity, moderate activity, exercise goals, or exercise intentions. Each call is represented by a separate record in the data file and, typically, there are multiple records per participant.

Dataset 3 (AC Topics Discussed on Completed Calls ) contains information about the topics discussed on each completed AC call, e.g., exercise barriers/benefits, previous exercise experiences, goal setting, long term goals, injury prevention, rewards/reinforcement, social support, progress tracking, and relapse prevention. Each record in the file represents one topic and there are often multiple records per call for each participant.

Dataset 4 (AC Aggregate Call Data) aggregates the call data across calls for each AC participant. For example, for a given participant, this dataset shows the total number of calls completed, the number of calls where injury/health problems were assessed, etc. The file contains one record per participant.

Dataset 5 (ALED Sessions Data) contains information about each class session for every ALED group, including the session date, start time, and end time, learning activities covered in the session, participant evaluations of the session and the facilitator, facilitator progress notes, the number of participants who were in various stages of readiness for moderate exercise, and the number of participants who tracked physical activity and thoughts about physical activity. This file has one record for each session of every ALED group.

Dataset 6 (ALED Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) consists of participant-level attendance and tracking data for every ALED session during the second to fourth years of the evaluation, including the participant's attendance at the session, whether the participant's stage of readiness was assessed, and whether the participant tracked thoughts about physical activity or actual physical activity. There is no participant-level ALED data for the first year. Each participant has a separate record for each session. Thus, the file contains 20 records per participant in the years 2-3, and 12 records per participant in year 4.

Dataset 7 (ALED Aggregate Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) contains ALED attendance and tracking data for each participant in years 2-4, aggregated across the sessions. The data file has one record for each participant.

Dataset 8 (Demographics) comprises program information (e.g., program status, start date, end date, site, etc.), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, employment status, income, and the participant's state and ZIP code of residence), and responses to the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), a screening tool that was used to assess possible risks of exercising based on answers to specific health history questions. The file contains one record for each AFL participant, except for those with a status of "nonstarter" or "repeater."

Datasets 9 (Pretest Survey Data) and 10 (Posttest Survey Data) contain data from the Pretest and Posttest Surveys. The Pretest Survey was administered at the beginning of the AC and ALED programs, while the Posttest Survey was administered at their end. Topics covered by the surveys include social and recreational activities, activities undertaken for exercise, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, satisfaction with body appearance and function, social support for physical activity, self-efficacy for physical activity, neighborhood environment, health conditions, health-related quality of life, caregiving, and self-reported height and weight. Both surveys included items from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Physical Activity Questionnaire (CHAMPS), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Questionnaire (CES-D), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaires (BRFSS), and the International Physical Activity Prevalence Study Environmental Module. These data files each have one record for each participant who submitted a questionnaire.

Dataset 11 (ALED Week 12 Survey Data (Year 4)) contains responses to the ALED Week 12 Posttest Survey, which was used to evaluate the 12-week adaptation of ALED in Year 4. (In Year 4, ALED participants completed both a 12- and 20-week posttest survey). There is one record for each participant who returned this survey.

Dataset 12 (Six-Month Posttest Follow-Up Survey Data (Years 3-4)) comprises data from a special 6-month follow-up survey which was administered in years 3-4 in six of the ALED sites and one of the AC sites. Participants were questioned about their current physical activities, weight, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with bodily function, and other topics. As with Datasets 9-11, the data file contains one record for each participant who returned a questionnaire.

Dataset 13 (Functional Fitness Tests Data) contains the results of pretest and posttest functional fitness tests which were administered by one ALED grantee. Four tests were adminstered: (1) the 30-Foot Walk Test, (2) the 30-Second Chair Stand, (3) 8-Foot Up and Go, and (4) the Chair Sit and Reach Test. This participant-level data file also includes pretest height measurements plus pretest and posttest weight measurements.

Dataset 14 (Participants' Impressions of the Programs (Years 1, 3, and 4)) contains data collected by the last sections of the Posttest Survey, ALED Week 12 survey, and 6-Month Follow-up Survey. The topics it covers include the participants' impressions of the programs, participation in physical activities, and changes (compared to before they started the AFL program) in motivation to be physically active, actual level of physical activity, medical and health conditions, overall pain, flexibility/limberness, level of stress, happiness, and enjoyment of life. The file has a separate record for each survey completed by the participants. Thus, there are 1-3 records per participant.

Oral contraceptive (OC) users living in El Paso, Texas were interviewed to assess motivations for patronizing a United States clinic or a Mexican pharmacy with over-the-counter (OTC) pills and to determine which women were likely to use the OTC option. The experiences of OC users who obtained their contraception from Mexican pharmacies were compared with those of women who obtained their pills from family planning clinics in El Paso, Texas, where eligible low-income women often pay nothing. 532 clinic users and 514 pharmacy users were surveyed about background characteristics, motivations for choosing their oral contraception source, and satisfaction with this source. For more information, please see the Border Contraceptive Access Study website.

Dating It Safe is a longitudinal cohort study of 1,042 youth in southeast Texas. Primarily freshmen high school students were recruited and assessed in the spring of 2010. Follow-up waves were collected annually each spring from 2011 through 2017 (Waves 2-8). The primary aims of this research study were to examine the:

• longitudinal association between the three different forms of teen dating violence (TDV; i.e., physical violence, psychological abuse, and sexual aggression), and
• risk and protective factors of TDV perpetration and victimization.

The Daily Experiences and Well-Being Study (DEWS) was conducted in 2017 by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. Adults aged 65 and older were recruited from the greater Austin Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area. To be eligible for the study, respondents had to be aged 65 or older, community dwelling, cognitively capable of completing the study, and not working full time. Surveys and interviews were conducted in Spanish or English. After an initial phone screening, a local interviewer contacted the respondent to conduct an in-person interview that lasted approximately 1.5 to 2 hours.

They then engaged in a 5-6 day intensive data collection, involving ambulatory assessments. The study provided handheld Android devices (i.e. smart phones) for the additional data collection, as well as training in the use of these devices to complete surveys.

The devices gathered self-reports of social interactions, activities and mood every 3 hours via ecological momentary assessments, EMA), recorded conversations 30 seconds out of every 7 minutes, (via electronically activated recordings, EAR), and physical activity every minute measured via actigraphs (Actical). At the end of the intensive data collection, the interviewer returned to the respondent's house to pick up the devices as well as a self-administered Leave-Behind Questionnaire (LBQ). A total of 333 respondents completed the baseline interview, 326 (97.9%) of whom completed device collection.

This collection includes an in-person interview (baseline/global), additional device collection (EMA, EAR, Actical), and Leave Behind Questionnaire. These data provide information on how social partners contribute to emotional, physical and cognitive experiences and to daily and global well-being. Demographic information includes age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, living arrangement, and education level.

The social and demographic data included in this collection consist of a single data file for each decennial year between 1870 and 2000, covering 10 of the 12 Great Plains states. Information on a variety of social and demographic topics was gathered to historically characterize populations living in counties within the United States Great Plains, in terms of: (1) urban, rural, and total population, (2) vital statistics, (3) net migration, (4) age and sex, (5) nativity and ancestry, (6) education and literacy, (7) religion, (8) industry, and (9) housing and other characteristics. These data include selected material compiled as part of the United States population census. The United States Census of Population and Housing has been conducted since 1790 on a regular schedule that is decennial. The county-level social and demographic data produced by the United States government as a result constitute a consistent series of measures capturing changes in the United States population's size, composition, and other characteristics. A subset of the variables available from the short and long-form survey questionnaires of the United States Census of Population and Housing (as compiled for counties) were extracted from previously existing digital files. Besides the decennial census of the population, county-level data were drawn from an assortment of existing digital files as well as sources that were manually digitized. Other data include compilations of county-level information gathered from various federal agencies and private organizations as well as the agriculture and economic censuses. Supplementing these compilations are manually digitized consumer market data, religious data, and vital statistics, including information about births, deaths, marriage, and divorce.

The Helping Young Smokers Quit (HYSQ) initiative was a multi-phase project that addressed the critical need to disseminate effective, developmentally appropriate cessation programs for young smokers. Phase I identified and described tobacco treatment programs available for youth in the United States, Phase II evaluated smoking secession programs tailored for youth to help understand what works, and Phase III identified factors associated with program sustainability. Phase II collected data from five sources: (1) program participants, (2) program providers, (3) program curricula, (4) organizational leaders, and (5) community leaders and community ordinances.

Program participants were interviewed at baseline, end-of program, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Topics covered by the interviews include age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, language spoken at home, employment, income, religiosity, school enrollment, education level, school grades, height, weight, extracurricular activities, recreation, sports, exercise, aspirations after high school, psychological well-being, alcohol consumption, cigarette use and use of other tobacco products, attitudes about smoking, plans to stop/continue smoking, attempts to quit smoking, reasons for participating in the program, topics/issues covered by the program, opinions about the program, and smoking experience since the beginning of the program. In addition, for each follow-up survey, the participants provided a breath sample for carbon monoxide analysis to validate self-reported quit status.

After the last session of each program delivery, the program providers, such as program leaders and cessation counselors, were interviewed about the content and delivery of the program and the reactions of the participants and themselves to the program as delivered. The program providers also kept attendance records.

Curriculum content was abstracted from program manuals and other materials used in each program.

Organizational leaders of the organizations that offered the programs were surveyed about various aspects of each organization, including the organization's smoking cessation program and the organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and practices.

Community-level information was collected in two ways: (1) interviews of community leaders representing local health departments, school boards, and juvenile justice offices, and (2) archival research of public ordinances relevant to tobacco and control policies.

Nine data files/datasets constitute the data. Datasets 1-4 contain the participant questionnaire data, carbon monoxide measurement data, and program attendance data. Dataset 5 comprises information about each program and its curriculum, some information about the community in which the program was located, and summary data about enforcement of tobacco-related ordinances. Dataset 6 contains information about about the program providers and each program delivery, including recruitment, logistics, content, and the reactions of providers and participants. Dataset 7 covers administrative aspects of the smoking cessation programs and each offering organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and norms. Dataset 8 contains information about local and state-level tobacco-related ordinances for every state and local jurisdiction where each program was located, and Dataset 9 condenses the information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community.

The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:

1. to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
2. to assess how features of the child's social contexts--home, neighborhood, and school--combine to influence key cognitive, socio-emotional, and health outcomes among parents and their children;
3. to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
4. to enhance the study of child development through theoretical and methodological advances in the study of housing and the other social contexts related to housing.

For this collection, the study team conducted Wave 1 data collection with families in Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) and Dallas, Texas, United States, using a randomized controlled trial design. One-half of the sample was an experimental sample consisting of applicants for a federal housing voucher, including both voucher winners (treatment group) and voucher losers (control group). The other half of the sample was generated through a random selection and screening process in census blocks that varied by household income weighted toward lower-income blocks.

Interviews were conducted with primary caregivers, lasting about 90 minutes, and included the collection of anthropometric measures from primary caregivers and children and administration of Woodcock-Johnson tests to children. Primary caregiver voucher sample participants were asked for three blood pressure measurements, and blood spots were collected from voucher sample primary caregivers and children. The data collection also includes laser tape measurement of all rooms in a household, 8 block face neighborhood observations, and post-interview observations. Four-day leave-behind child time diary data were collected but are not available.

The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:

1. to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
2. to assess how features of the child's social contexts--home, neighborhood, and school--combine to influence key cognitive, socio-emotional, and health outcomes among parents and their children;
3. to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
4. to enhance the study of child development through theoretical and methodological advances in the study of housing and the other social contexts related to housing.

This collection includes data from Wave 2 of the HCHD Study. In Wave 2, telephone interviews were completed with 1,413 primary caregivers (PCGs) from the Wave 1 data collection. The PCGs also provided reports for 1,954 focal children who were still living in the household of the caregiver at the time of the Wave 2 survey. Wave 2 data collection included a coverscreen to gather updated location and contact information for the PCGs and children to determine household eligibility, and a PCG questionnaire based largely on the Wave 1 protocol with modifications for telephone interviewing.

The NIH-funded Katrina@10 Program consists of an interrelated set of three primary data collection projects that focus on specific sub-populations who were uniquely affected by Hurricane Katrina: households along Louisiana and Mississippi's Gulf Coast, low-income parents from New Orleans, and Vietnamese families living in New Orleans. In addition, the program contains two secondary analyses of data that are more broadly representative of the overall affected population, and three cores (Administrative, Data Collection, Data Management and Dissemination) to support the set of research projects. The following research questions represent the studies together as a whole:

• How well does the socio-ecological model of disaster recovery developed by the research team (Abramson et al. 2010) predict recovery across the three cohort studies?
• How do trajectories of long-term recovery differ among and within these sub-populations?
• How do the trajectories of recovery compare to those of mainstream populations?
• How do the effects of predisposing factors (such as poverty) and degree-of-impact (such as flooding depth) vary among the three sub-populations?
• How do interpretations of the disaster, resilience, and recovery differ among respondents?
• What are the determinants of long-term recovery in domains such as mental and physical health, socio-economic status, and community and social roles? How are these domains related to each other across individuals and across sub-populations?

The Katrina Impacts on Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans (KATIVA NOLA) study was a longitudinal study interested in measuring the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Vietnamese-Americans living in New Orleans. The original sample was taken in summer 2005 and was followed by three rounds of short and medium-term data collection in the 5 years following Katrina. This study measured a variety of outcomes, including physical and mental health, economic stability, housing stability, and social ties, to examine the long-term recovery trajectories of participants.

The data in this collection are from an additional, long-term follow-up survey conducted between 2017 and 2019. A public-use version (DS1) and restricted-use version (DS2) are available. Open-ended responses, continuous respondent age, continuous total household income, and a variable indicating exposure to specific flood events have been masked in the public-use version. These items are available in the restricted-use version.

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of Latino ethnicity on pretrial release decisions in large urban counties. The study examined two questions:

• Are Latino defendants less likely to receive pretrial releases than non-Latino defendants?
• Are Latino defendants in counties where the Latino population is rapidly increasing less likely to receive pretrial releases than Latino defendants in counties where the Latino population is not rapidly increasing?

The study utilized the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) Database (see STATE COURT PROCESSING STATISTICS, 1990-2004: FELONY DEFENDANTS IN LARGE URBAN COUNTIES [ICPSR 2038]). The SCPS collects data on felony cases filed in state courts in 40 of the nation's 75 largest counties over selected sample dates in the month of May of every even numbered year, and tracks a representative sample of felony case defendants from arrest through sentencing. Data in the collection include 118,556 cases.

Researchers supplemented the SCPS with county-level information from several sources:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program county-level data series of index crimes reported to the police for the years 1988-2004 (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1998 [ICPSR 9335], UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1990 [ICPSR 9785], 1992 [ICPSR 6316], 1994 [ICPSR 6669], 1996 [ICPSR 2389], 1998 [ICPSR 2910], 2000 [ICPRS 3451], 2002 [ICPSR 4009], and 2004 [ICPSR 4466]).
• Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Survey of Jails, Jurisdiction-Level data series for the years 1988-2004 (see ANNUAL SURVEY OF JAILS: JURISDICTION-LEVEL DATA, 1990 [ICPSR 9569], 1992 [ICPSR 6395], 1994 [ICPSR 6538], 1996 [ICPSR 6856], 1998 [ICPSR 2682], 2000 [ICPSR 3882], 2002 [ICPSR 4428], and 2004 [ICPSR 20200]).
• Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prosecutors Survey/Census data series 1990-2005 (see NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 [ICPSR 9579], 1992 [ICPSR 6273], 1994 [ICPSR 6785], 1996 [ICPSR 2433], 2001 census [ICPSR 3418], and 2005 [ICPSR 4600]).
• United States Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts.
• National Center for State Courts, State Court Organization reports, 1993 (see NCJ 148346), 1998 (see NCJ 178932), and 2004 (see NCJ 212351).
• Bureau of Justice Statistics Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties reports, 1992 (see NCJ 148826), 1994 (see NCJ 164616), 1996 (see NCJ 176981), 1998 (see NJC 187232), 2000 (see NCJ 202021), and 2002 (see NJC 210818).

The data include defendant level variables such as most serious current offense charge, number of charges, prior felony convictions, prior misdemeanor convictions, prior incarcerations, criminal justice status at arrest, prior failure to appear, age, gender, ethnicity, and race. County level variables include region, crime rate, two year change in crime rate, caseload rate, jail capacity, two year change in jail capacity, judicial selection by election or appointment, prosecutor screens cases, and annual expenditure on prosecutor's office. Racial threat stimuli variables include natural log of the percentage of the county population that is Latino, natural log of the percentage of the county population that is African American, change in the percentage of the county population that is Latino over the last six years and change in the percentage of the county population that is African American over the last six years. Cross-level interaction variables include percentage minority (Latino/African American) population zero percent to 15 percent, percentage minority (Latino/African American) population 16 percent to 30 percent, and percentage minority (Latino/African American) population 31 percent or higher.

The Social Capital and Children's Development data were collected in a study of the causal effects of social capital on levels and inequalities of children's social and cognitive development during the early elementary years. The study included 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, including 3,084 first graders and their families, and over 200 teachers, with half the schools randomly selected for the intervention and half serving as controls. Children from low-income Latino families were a special focus of the study. The experimental design of this study allowed for testing of the causal role of social capital. Social capital here refers to trust and shared expectations embedded in social networks of parents, teachers, and children. For young children, social capital operates primarily through their relationships with their parents, enhancing development through mechanisms of social support and social control.

The research design was experimental: social capital was manipulated through a well-tested randomized intervention, Families and Schools Together (FAST), that enhanced social capital among parents, teachers, and children through an intensive after-school program and a 2-year follow-up program. FAST is intended to reduce parental isolation, enhance family engagement with schools, and strengthen family functioning; that is, to increase social capital between families and schools, among families, and within families to improve children's education and life-long outcomes. Key aspects of child development were assessed, including (a) social skills and problem behavior from standardized behavioral ratings by parents and teachers, and (b) grade retention, attendance rates, and third-grade reading and mathematics scores from school records. Social capital was measured with repeated surveys of teachers and parents that address the extent of social networks, parent involvement, trust, and shared expectations among parents, between parents and schools, and between parents and children. Demographic variables of this study include native language, years in the United States, date of birth/age, race/ethnicity, gender, and household composition.

The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to develop, to implement, and to test the effectiveness of a program aimed at strengthening low-income couples' marriages as one approach for supporting stable and nurturing family environments and parents' and children's well-being. The evaluation was led by MDRC and was sponsored by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services.The SHM program was a voluntary yearlong marriage education program for low-income married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided a series of group workshops based on structured curricula designed to enhance couples' relationships; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes.

The study sample consists of 6,298 couples (12,596 adult sample members) who were expecting a child or had a child under 18 years old at the time of study entry. The sample consists primarily of low-to-modest income, married couples with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. In each family, one child was randomly selected to be the focus of any child-related measures gathered in the data collection activities. These children ranged from pre-birth to 14 years old at the time of enrollment in the study. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 12 and 30 months after baseline data collection. More detail is provided in the study documentation.

Texas Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Stress Resilience and Health, 2016-2019 (TLSASR) is a multi-method study examining the effects of naturalistic stressors on adolescents as they enter and proceed through high school. This transitional period often presents adolescents with more and more complex sources of social and evaluative stress. Both stress levels and effectiveness of adolescents' responses can have consequences on their life course trajectories, including contributing to gender and racial/ethnic disparities in adult health and well-being. The TLSASR dataset aims to support researchers pursuing a deeper and more integrative understanding of this critical adolescent developmental period.

The study's data contain multiple waves of collection spanning the fall of 2016 to the spring of 2019. Informed by the biopsychosocial model of human development, the study integrates data from a range of sources and methods each wave/year. This included a survey battery assessing numerous psychological (e.g., stress, mental health, mindset), biological (e.g., height, weight, pubertal development), and contextual (e.g., school climate) factors, as well as daily in-school experience sampling, and daily salivary hormone levels for hormonal assessment. School records for each year are also included, as is an experimental manipulation testing the effects of a brief growth mindset intervention to promote improved stress resilience.