Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluating the Effects of Fatigue on Police Patrol Officers in Lowell, Massachusetts, Polk County, Florida, Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2974)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Lowell, Massachusetts, Portland (Oregon), Florida, Virginia
Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to assess the connections between administratively controllable sources of fatigue among police patrol officers and problems such as diminished performance, accidents, and illness. The study sought to answer: (1) What is the prevalence of officer fatigue, and what are officers' attitudes toward it? (2) What are the causes or correlates of officer fatigue? (3) How does fatigue affect officer safety, health, and job performance? and (4) Can officer fatigue be measured objectively? The final sample was comprised of all sworn, nonsupervisory police officers assigned full-time to patrol and/or community policing functions on the day that data collection began at each of four selected sites: Lowell, Massachusetts, Polk County, Florida, Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia. Part 1, Fatigue Survey Data, includes demographic data and officers' responses from the initial self-report survey. Variables include the extent to which the respondent felt hot or cold, experienced uncomfortable breathing, bad dreams, or pain while sleeping, the time the respondent usually went to bed, number of hours slept each night, quality of sleep, whether medicine was taken as a sleep aid, estimated hours worked in a one-, two-, seven-, and thirty-day period, how overtime affected income, family relationships, and social activities, and reasons for feeling tired. Part 2, Demographic and Fatigue Survey Data, is comprised of data obtained from administrative records and demographic data forms. Several measures from the initial self-report survey are also included in Part 2. Variables focus on respondents' age, sex, race, marital status, global score on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scale, total years as a police officer assigned to any agency and current agency, and total years worked in current shift. Data for Part 3, FIT and Administrative Data, were obtained from administrative records and from the fitness-for-duty (FIT) workplace screener test. Variables include a pupilometry index score and the dates, time, and particular shift (days, evenings, or midnight) the officer started working when the pupilometry test was administered. Part 3 also includes the number of hours worked by the officer in a regular shift or in association with overtime, the number of sick leave hours taken by the officer, and whether the officer was involved in an on-duty accident, injured on duty, or commended by his/her department during a particular shift.
Curated
Restricted
The Impact of Mindfulness-Based Resilience Training on Stress-Related Biological, Behavioral, and Health-Related Outcomes in Law Enforcement Officers, Wisconsin, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 38293)
Released/updated on: 2024-04-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Dane County, Wisconsin
Time period: 2018-03-01--2019-12-31
This mixed-methods randomized controlled trial study, conducted in collaboration with three Dane County (Wisconsin) law enforcement agencies, compared the effects of an 8-week mindfulness training (MT) program relative to a waitlist control (WLC) group on biological, behavioral, and self-report measures of stress and stress-related health outcomes. Across a two-year data collection period, the research team randomly assigned 114 sworn law enforcement officers to MT or WLC groups. Across three timepoints (baseline, post-program, and 3-month follow-up), researchers assessed the impact of MT on perceived stress (Aim 1), physical and mental health outcomes including behaviorally assessed and self-reported sleep quality, cardiovascular risk factors, and symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression (Aim 2), and stress-related biological and behavioral markers (Aim 3), including cortisol output and a behavioral assay of hippocampus function. Data collected as part of this study include quantitative measures obtained during laboratory visits and a week of field data collection, as well as optional semi-structured qualitative interview data.
This collection currently contains the following file types available in zipped package format. Excluding changes made for confidentiality purposes, files have been released as they were received by ICPSR:
- Summary data: Master data file (nij_masterfile.csv) containing demographics, summed scores from self-report questionnaires, behavioral markers, biomarkers, and mindfulness practice logs; Fitbit activity, heart rate, and sleep data (nij_fitbitSummary.csv); saliva sample collection data (nij_salivaCollectionNotes.csv, nij_salivaQCSpreadsheet.xlsx, nij_salivaryCortCleaned.csv, nij_salivaryCortProcessed.csv, nij_salivaryCortRaw.csv); work event log data (nij_workEventsRaw.xlsx)
- Raw behavioral data files: for all timepoints, affective go/no-go task data (agnRaw) and mnemonic similarity task data (mstRaw)
- Summary behavioral data files (agnSummary): for all timepoints, affective go/no-go task data
- Raw Fitbit data files (fitbitRaw): activity/steps, heart rate, and sleep data for all timepoints
- Scripts: R, Python, and bash scripts, with readme files, that were used in biomarker and behavioral marker data cleaning/analysis
Qualitative interview data and documentation are not available at this time.
Curated
Restricted
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Child Behavior Checklist, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13611)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-17
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures that composed the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL protocol, administered to parents or primary caregivers, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and has been one of the most widely-used standardized measures in child psychology for evaluating maladaptive behavioral and emotional problems in preschool subjects aged 2 to 3 or in subjects between the ages of 4 and 18. One version of the CBCL was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohort 0, while another version was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3-15 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study. Both versions assessed internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactive, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Several subareas were measured including social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression, destructive behavior, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behaviors. The Wave 2 versions of the instrument contained a subset of questions asked in the Wave 1 versions. Each of the questions asked in Wave 2 was also asked in Wave 1.
Curated
Restricted
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Child Behavior Checklist, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13679)
Released/updated on: 2006-10-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures that composed the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL protocol, administered to parents or primary caregivers, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and has been one of the most widely used standardized measures in child psychology for evaluating maladaptive behavioral and emotional problems in preschool subjects aged 2 to 3 or in subjects between the ages of 4 and 18. The CBCL was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study. It assessed internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactive, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Several subareas were measured including social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behaviors. The Wave 3 version of the instrument is nearly identical to the Wave 2 version, which was administered to Cohorts 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 [ICPSR 13611]). The Wave 3 version contains a question regarding cruelty to animals that was not present in the Wave 2 version for Cohorts 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.