Search results

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 Study) builds on the American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (AIAN FACES), which has been a source of national information on children and families enrolled in Head Start programs operated by federally recognized tribes (known as Region XI AIAN Head Start) since 2015. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN FACES Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Region XI Head Start families' and staff's lives--and from recognizing the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on AIAN communities.

The 2021-2022 study included a nonrepresentative sample of Region XI Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Although a nationally representative sample of Region XI Head Start programs, centers, teachers, and children were selected, fewer of them participated than expected, despite an extension of the planned parental consent collection and data collection windows.

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 study), builds on the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), which has been a source of national information about Head Start programs and participants since 1997. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Head Start families' and staff's lives.

The 2021-2022 study included two components. Firstly, the Program, Staff, and Family Study, was conducted in 60 programs, and included the collection of parent surveys and Teacher Child Reports (TCRs) in fall 2021 and spring 2022, as well as a teacher survey in fall 2021. Secondly, the Program and Staff Study, conducted in the 60 programs participating in the Program, Staff, and Family Study plus an additional 120 programs, included the collection of program director, center director, and teacher surveys in spring 2022.

The 2021-2022 study aimed to describe the national population of Head Start programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children during the 2021-2022 program year. However, the Data Producers were unable to fully meet this goal because of challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationally representative sample of Head Start programs was selected. However, fewer of the programs participated than expected. Probability samples of centers, teachers, and children within the participating programs were selected. Weights are available for analysis to account for the probability that children and their teachers, centers, and programs were selected for the study. This lessens the risk of bias due to study non-participation and survey nonresponse; and provide results that represent, to the extent possible, all programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children in Head Start. The responding sample may not fully represent the population due to higher-than-expected non-response that may not have been adequately addressed with weighting adjustments.

Despite these limitations, the 2021-2022 study sample design supports many analyses for programs and teachers, as well as children. The data from the programs in the Program, Staff, and Family Study can address questions about the children and parents who participate in the program, including about children's development across one year in the Head Start program for both newly entering children and those returning for a second year. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as families with low income and specific racial/ethnic groups, as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. In addition, the research questions investigate the characteristics of Head Start programs, centers, and teachers, and the classrooms they teach. Users can use the same data to answer questions about the relationships between program and classroom characteristics and child and family well-being. The data from the larger sample of programs in the Program and Staff Study are most useful for answering questions about Head Start programs, classrooms, teachers, and program and center directors.

This study is part of the Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project that involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse. All studies were independently developed, but were chosen for the collaboration because they focused on one or more steps of the HIV treatment cascade: Seek, Test, Treat and Retain. As part of STTR Collaboration Project, the studies were grouped into Criminal Justice-related studies and Vulnerable Population-related studies. The data collected by these studies included twelve common domains (e.g., Demographic characteristics, Mental Health) in each of which a shared questionnaire or instrument was taken up by the studies and adapted to fit the study.

Using a randomized controlled study design, this study tested the efficacy of an abstinence-reinforcing CM intervention compared with a control condition (performance feedback) on HIV viral load (VL) suppression. The intervention CM group could receive up to $1320 in vouchers over the 16-week intervention based on drug-free urine. Participants were followed for 28 weeks (44 visits), with research visits occurring twice weekly during the Baseline Period (weeks 1-4, visits 1-8) and Intervention Period (weeks 5-20, visits 9-40), then every two weeks during the Post-Intervention Period (weeks 21-28, visits 41-44).

The data producers have recompiled the ACTIVE data into a new study which is available as of December 2023, ICPSR 38821; data users should plan to use study 38821 instead.

ACTIVE (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly), 1999-2001 [United States] was a multisite randomized controlled trial conducted at six field sites with New England Research Institutes (NERI) as the coordinating center. The field sites included the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged in Boston, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of Florida/Wayne State University (Detroit). The primary aim of the trial was to test the effects of three distinct cognitive interventions -- previously found to be successful in improving elders' performance on basic measures of cognition under laboratory or small-scale field conditions -- on measures of cognitively demanding daily activities. Trainings consisted of an initial series of ten group sessions followed by four-session booster trainings at one and three years. The three cognitive interventions focused on memory, executive reasoning, and speed of processing. The design included a no-contact control group. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately after training, and annually thereafter. A total of 2,832 older adults were enrolled in the trial, and 2,802 were included in the analytical sample. Twenty-six percent of the participants were African American.

The Arizona Working and Living in Prison (AZWLP) project examined the impact of living and working in restrictive status housing, with a particular focus on the impact of restrictive housing on prisoner and staff well-being. The prisoner data represents three waves of data: baseline (within 3 weeks of placement in permanent housing), six months, and twelve months across medium, close, and maximum security custody levels. The critical measure of well-being is the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R). Prisoners were assessed at all three time points to determine whether placement in maximum custody impacted well-being as compared to placements in close or medium custody.

The staff data represents cross-sectional data of staff working in medium, close, and maximum security custody levels and asked staff to report on the emotional and physical impacts of the job, psychosomatic symptoms, organizational commitment, and social support.

The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) survey series is an ongoing, nationally representative, longitudinal study focusing especially on differences between Black and White Americans in middle and late life. These data constitute the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth waves in a panel survey covering a wide range of sociological, psychological, mental, and physical health items. Wave I of the study began in 1986 with a nation face-to-face survey of 3,617 adults ages 25 and up, with Black Americans and people aged 60 and over over-sampled at twice the rate of the others. Wave II constitutes face-to-face re-interviews in 1989 of those still alive. Survivors have been re-interviewed by telephone, and when necessary face-to-face, in 1994 (Wave III), 2001/02 (Wave IV), 2011 (Wave V), and 2019/21 (Wave VI).

Please note that for Wave VI, the majority of data collection occurred in 2019, with only a small subset (n=39) of participants surveyed in 2021.

ACL was designed and sought to investigate the following: (1) The ways in which a wide range of activities and social relationships that people engage in are broadly "productive," (2) how individuals adapt to acute life events and chronic stresses that threaten the maintenance of health, effective functioning, and productive activity, and (3) sociocultural variations in the nature, meaning, determinants, and consequences of productive activity and relationships. Among the topics covered are interpersonal relationships (spouse/partner, children, parents, friends), sources and levels of satisfaction, social interactions and leisure activities, traumatic life events (physical assault, serious illness, divorce, death of a loved one, financial or legal problems), perceptions of retirement, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, rest), and utilization of health care services (doctor visits, hospitalization, nursing home institutionalization, bed days). Also included are measures of physical health, psychological well-being, and indices referring to cognitive functioning.

Demographic information provided for individuals includes household composition, number of children and grandchildren, employment status, occupation and work history, income, family financial situation, religious beliefs and practices, ethnicity, race, education, sex, and region of residence.

*****************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************

The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) is an extensive study of mental health risk and resilience among military personnel. Army STARRS consists of eight separate but integrated epidemiologic and neurobiologic studies. Survey data for three of the Army STARRS study components are available via Secure Dissemination or via the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave: New Soldier Study (NSS); All Army Study (AAS) and Pre-Post Deployment Study (PPDS). Also available are data for the STARRS-Longitudinal Study (STARRS-LS), which are follow-up surveys conducted with Army STARRS participants from AAS, NSS and PPDS studies. Lastly, baseline administrative data from the Army/Department of Defense (DoD) and blood sample flags for Soldiers who had blood drawn as a part of their participation in NSS or PPDS are available.

The AAS component of Army STARRS assesses soldiers' psychological and physical health, events encountered during training, combat, and non-combat operations, and life and work experiences across all phases of Army service. The AAS data includes data on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, and risk for self-harm.

The NSS data are drawn from new soldiers who have just entered the Army. The data contain information on soldier health, personal characteristics, and prior experiences. Results from a series of neurocognitive tests are also included in the NSS data.

The PPDS data are drawn from active duty soldiers who were interviewed at four points in time: 3-4 months prior to deployment to Afghanistan; within 1-2 weeks after return from deployment; 1-3 months after return from deployment; and 9-12 months after return from deployment. The PPDS data contain information on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, deployment experiences, and risk for self-harm.

The STARRS-LS data are from multiple follow-up interviews with individuals who previously participated in the AAS, NSS and PPDS study components of Army STARRS. STARRS-LS data contain follow-up information on soldiers' and veterans' physical and mental health, resilience and risk for self-harm, military and employment status, deployment experience, and personal characteristics as they move through their Army careers and after they leave the Army.

In contrast to the model-minority myth, which conceptualizes Asian American youth as more educationally successful, respectful of teachers, hardworking, and cooperative that other ethnic minority youth (Chang and Sue, 2003), research has demonstrated that Asian American youth are at an increased risk for depression and suicide than their White or Black counterparts (Sen, 2004). Specifically, Asian American females aged 15-24 have the highest rate of completed suicides (14.1%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (e.g., White 9.3%, Black 3.3%, and Hispanic 7.4%). Asian males of the same age group have the second highest rate of suicide deaths (12.7%) compared to other racial/ethnic group males (e.g., White 17.5%, Black 6.7%, and Hispanic 10%) (CDC 2008). In addition to these specific mental health problems, these youth face additional culturally-specific concerns, including racial discrimination (Lee et al., 2009).

Despite such needs, Asian Americans underutilize traditional mental health services (Abe-Kim et al., 2007). Compared to youth (aged 18 or younger) from other racial or ethnic groups, Asian American youth are less likely than White, Black, or Hispanic children to actually receive mental health care (Ku and Matani, 2000). Additionally, research has demonstrated that Asian American youth also tend to underutilize mental health services in school settings (Amaral, Geierstanger, Soleimanpour, and Brindis, 2011; Anyon, Ong, and Whitaker, 2014; Walker, Kerns, Lyon, Bruns, and Cosgrove, 2010), despite the delivery of mental health services in schools seemingly overcoming certain structural barriers to seeking and obtaining mental health services, including transportation, insurance coverage, and cost (Cauce et al., 2002).

Using exploratory focus groups, this qualitative study sought to explore perceptions of barriers to seeking school-based mental health services among first- and second-generation Asian youth of immigrant origin (33 participants in 7 focus groups). The specific research questions were: What are the sources of stress that may contribute to mental health concerns among Asian and Asian American youth, and what are their perceptions of barriers to mental health service use?

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a system of health-related telephone surveys that collect state data about U.S. residents regarding their health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services. Established in 1984 with 15 states, BRFSS now collects data in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories. BRFSS completes more than 400,000 adult interviews each year.

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.

The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.

Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

This study is the current arm of the Caribbean Migration Project, designed to generate a database of Jamaicans, returned residents and those with no international migration history, across the income classes and residential areas in Kingston and St. Andrew, Manchester and St. Ann. Jamaica was chosen as the inaugural country for investigation as a pilot for the processes involved in the data collection and fine-tuning the protocols to be extended to other Caribbean countries. The four parishes in Jamaica were purposively selected because of their proportion of returning residents in comparison with the country's other parishes. Respondents were thought to represent a sample of persons from a range of parishes in which there is a high proportion of returned residents (St. Andrew and Manchester) to others in which the majority of the population has no international migration history (St. Ann and Kingston). Demographic variables in this study include age, family size and structure, ethnicity, education, and travel and migration history.

With the creation of the first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989, problem-solving courts emerged as an innovative effort to close the revolving door of recidivism. Designed to target the social and psychological problems underlying certain types of criminal behavior, the problem-solving model boasts a community-based, therapeutic approach. As a result of the anecdotal successes of early drug courts, states expanded the problem-solving court model by developing specialized courts or court dockets to address a number of social problems. Although the number and types of problem-solving courts has been expanding, the formal research and statistical information regarding the operations and models of these programs has not grown at the same rate. Multiple organizations have started mapping the variety of problem-solving courts in the county; however, a national catalogue of problem-solving court infrastructure is lacking. As evidence of this, different counts of problem-solving courts have been offered by different groups, and a likely part of the discrepancy lies in disagreements about how to define and identify a problem-solving court. What is known about problem-solving courts is therefore limited to evaluation or outcome analyses of specific court programs.

In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded the National Center for State Courts a grant to develop accurate and reliable national statistics regarding problem-solving court operations, staffing, and participant characteristics. The NCSC, with assistance from the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), produced the resulting Census of Problem-Solving Courts which captures information on over 3,000 problem-solving courts that were operational in 2012.

The Chicago Community Adult Health Study (CCAHS) consists of four interrelated components that were conducted simultaneously: (1) a survey of adult health on a probability sample of 3,105 Chicago adults, including direct physical measurements of their blood pressure and heart rate and of height, weight, waist and hip circumference, and leg length; (2) a biomedical supplement which collected blood and/or saliva samples on a subset of 661 survey respondents; (3) a community survey in which individuals described aspects of the social environment of all survey respondents' neighborhoods; and (4) a systematic social observation (SSO) of the blocks in which potential survey respondents resided, including a lost letter drop (Milgram et al. 1965) as an unobtrusive measure of neighborhood social capital/sense of responsibility to help others. The latter two extend a community survey and SSO of neighborhoods carried out by the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) in 1995. The adult health survey and the community survey were conducted jointly through face-to-face interviews with a stratified, multistage probability sample of 3,105 individuals aged 18 and over and living in the city of Chicago, with a response rate of 72 percent that is about the highest currently attainable in large urban areas. In addition, blood pressure, heart rate, and physical measurements (of height, weight, waist and hips, and leg length) were collected during the survey interview, and blood and saliva samples from 661 respondents or 60 percent of those doing the survey in the 80 "focal" neighborhood clusters (NCs). SSOs were conducted on 1,663 of the 1,672 city blocks on which each respondent lived. The CCAHS is the largest of five projects under the NIH-funded Michigan Interdisciplinary Center on Social Inequalities, Mind and Body Mind (#P50HD38986), one of five Mind-Body Centers funded by the National Institutes of Health in late 1999. This study will advance the understanding of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in health, a major priority of the Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health.

The PI-supplied summary mentions that the study is comprised of four components. However, for the purposes of this data release there are three distinct datasets. Demographic variables include age, birth year, race, ethnicity, number of children in the household, number of children living elsewhere, number of times the respondent has been married, and relationship status, religious preference, and sex.

Childhood Adversity and Traumatic Stress among Inpatients at a Psychiatric Hospital in the Baltimore Area from 1993-1995 includes data collected from adult patients at a psychiatric hospital about their experiences and symptoms throughout their lives.

The study sought to address the following research topics:

1. The capacity of childhood family environment (caretaker dysfunction, neglect, perceived social support), violent abuse (physical and sexual), and individual variables (other abuse) to predict adult psychiatric symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociation, and depression.
2. How psychiatric inpatient research participants appraised the level of upset and potential usefulness of research participation related to trauma-focused research interviews.
3. What patterns of gaps in memory are reported across types of abuse (physical, sexual, neglect) and other types of traumatic stress.
4. Whether and how low positive affect is related to specific childhood adversities, including abuse, neglect, caretaker dysfunction, and low childhood social support.

In addition, data from the study were used to develop and validate a self-report measure of traumatic stress symptoms and a brief, structured interview of self-destructiveness.

The data include diagnoses, psychological symptoms, and structured interview responses related to physical and sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and self-destructive behavior. Age, sex, marital status, race, and socioeconomic status comprise the demographic data.

These data are not available through ICPSR. To apply for access to the data please visit the China Family Panel Studies Web site.

The China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) is a nationally representative, annual longitudinal general social survey project designed to document changes in Chinese society, economy, population, education, and health. The CFPS was launched in 2010 by the the Institute of Social Science Survey (ISSS) of Peking University, China. The data were collected at the individual, family, and community levels and are targeted for use in academic research and public policy analysis. All members over age 9 in a sampled household are interviewed. These individuals constitute core members of the CFPS and follow-up of all core members of the CFPS is designed to take place on a yearly basis. CFPS focuses on the economic and non-economic well-being of the Chinese people, and covers topics such as economic activities, educational attainment, family relationships and dynamics, migration, and physical and mental health.

The Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS) is a comprehensive family panel study of individuals, households, and communities in the Chitwan Valley of Nepal. The study was initially designed to investigate the influence of changing community and household contexts on population outcomes such as marital and childbearing processes. Over time, the goals of the study expanded to investigate family dynamics, intergenerational influences, child health, migration, labor force participation, attitudes and beliefs, mental health, agricultural production, environmental change, and many other topics. The data include full life histories for more than 10,000 individuals, tracking and interviews with all migrants, continuous measurement of community change, over 25 years of demographic event registry, and many other data collections. For additional information regarding the Chitwan Valley Family Study, please visit the Chitwan Valley Family Study Website. A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download.

Principal Investigators

• William G. Axinn, University of Michigan
• Dirgha Ghimire, University of Michigan
• Jordan Smoller, Massachusetts General Hospital

Purpose. The CoNNECT Project enables comparative effectiveness research on mental health, behavioral health, and substance use in primary care. CoNNECT tracked two main elements: (1) the number of patients identified with a comorbid mental health and physical health diagnosis; (2) the number of patients who initiate treatment secondary to a mental health diagnosis. CoNNECT created the capacity to build a base for mental health in primary care comparative effectiveness research using electronic connectivity to generate retrospective and in time prospective clinical data.

Data Access. CoNNECT data are not available from ICPSR. The data from this study are hosted at DARTNet.

This collection includes a combined dataset of the Generations study wave 1 (baseline) survey and the TransPop study transgender survey. The two studies have many overlapping variables, and they examined topics such as respondents' health outcomes and behaviors, experiences with discrimination, identity, and transition-related experiences. Data from these studies were merged to allow for analysis of the combined LGBT populations. This dataset has also been reweighted to be representative of these populations.

The complete Generations study data (baseline, wave 2, and wave 3 survey data) can be found under study number 37166, and the complete TransPop study data (transgender and cisgender survey data) can be found under study number 37938. For detailed information on the Generations and TransPop studies, including related publications, please refer to their respective DSDR/ICPSR study pages.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study was designed to provide a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with serious mental illness (SMI). These programs were selected in response to criticism of similar research for studying young programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to indicate sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and data were collected from three distinct court-based programs: the Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) which serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies, the Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit which involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI, and the Cook County Adult Probation Department which has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Probation officer interviews were coded for themes regarding beliefs about the relationship between mental illness and crime, views on the purpose of their program, and approaches used with probationers with SMI. The coding of probationer interviews focused on experiences related to having SMI and being on probation, including: the extent to which probation was involved with mental health treatment; development of awareness of mental health issues; evaluations of the programs based on subjective experiences; and the relationship dynamics between probationers and staff.

The collection includes 3 Stata data files: DRI-R_data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 98 cases and 61 variables, Epperson_NIJ_Quantitative_Data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 25203 cases and 49 variables, and incarceration_data_061515.dta with 676 cases and 4 variables. The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

The COVID-19 Citizen Science (CCS) Study was launched early in the pandemic to collect patient-reported information about exposures, risk behaviors and outcomes relevant to the pandemic. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded the research team to expand recruitment into CCS using PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, and to use the resulting data to compare the patient-reported impact of pandemic associated policies. The research team systematically collected pandemic-associated policies enacted by counties across the United States (focusing in areas where there were many CCS participants), and to do so on a weekly basis from the beginning of the pandemic using publicly available sources.

Researchers combined data from various sources to answer two primary research questions (RQ):

1. What is the comparative impact of different shelter-in-place/reopening policies, overall and in vulnerable populations, on patient-reported financial insecurity, mental health, and other subjective outcomes important to patients?
2. What is the comparative effectiveness of county-level containment and mitigation strategies at achieving timely access to COVID-19 vaccination, testing, healthcare, information and contact tracing?

The research team collected patient-reported data from the CCS study and policy data from the U.S COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) database. Electronic health record (EHR) data were also available from some participants recruited from health systems located across 7 U.S. states who consented and authorized use of these data for the study. Data for these participants were extracted from the PCORnet Common Data Model (CDM). Additional county-level contextual variables were included in analysis.

This collection contains CCS survey data on patient-reported anxiety with county-level policies data (DS1), respondent demographics (DS2), baseline survey results (DS3), daily (DS4) and weekly (DS5) COVID-19 symptoms reports, COVID-19 vaccination surveys repeated monthly (DS6) as well as a one-time vaccination survey (DS7), and pandemic impacts check-in surveys (DS8). CDM datasets include logistic regression model outcomes to predict study enrollment among all invited participants (DS9), codes for immunizations (DS10), laboratory tests (DS11), and procedures (DS12). County-level variables are also available for years 2021 (DS13) and 2023 (DS14).