Health care providers are unprepared to meet the health needs of patients who have disabilities. Disability training is needed, yet there is little agreement about what should be taught. Establish a national consensus on what healthcare providers across disciplines need to know to provide quality care to patients with all types of disabilities (e.g., mobility, sensory, developmental, mental health). People with disabilities, disability advocates, family members of people with disabilities, disability and health professionals, and inter-disciplinary health educators systematically evaluated and provided feedback on a draft set of disability competencies. Based on this feedback, competencies were iteratively refined. After two waves of feedback, six competencies, 49 sub-competencies, and 10 principles and values emerged that addressed topics such as respect, person-centered care, and awareness of physical, attitudinal, and communication health care barriers. An overwhelming majority (89%) agreed or strongly agreed that the disability competencies reflected the core understandings needed to provide quality care for patients with disabilities, were relevant across disability types (85%), and across health care disciplines (96%). Averaging evaluative feedback across competencies, participants reported that the competencies were important (98%) and clear (96%). This consensus on what to teach is an important milestone in preparing a disability competent health care workforce. Future directions for research, training, and policy are discussed. When disability is included in health care education, the health care workforce will be prepared to deliver accessible, patient-centered, quality health care to patients with disabilities.

To examine test–retest reliability of common behavioral decision making tasks. A total of 98 undergraduate students completed two administrations of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), Columbia Card Task (CCT), and Game of Dice Task (GDT), three weeks apart. The BART, CCT, and GDT showed moderately strong correlations across time. On the IGT, no correlations were seen between Time 1 Trials 1–40 and Time 2 performance; however, weak correlations were observed between Time 1 Trials 41–100 and Time 2 performance. Paired-samples t-tests indicated participants were riskier at Time 1 than Time 2 on the IGT and GDT, but riskier at Time 2 on the BART. The BART, CCT, and GDT showed moderate test–retest reliability, with the IGT showing weak reliability during the decision making under risk trials only. Implications for repeated test administration in clinical and non-clinical settings are discussed.

While LGBTQ youth may be victims of bullying at greater rates than heterosexual youth, research examining in-school bullying and cyberbullying victimization disparities through an intersectional framework is limited. Using the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the present study examined the prevalence of in-school bullying and cyberbullying victimization across sexual orientation, gender, race, and grade (N = 13,567). Results position sexual minority youth at higher odds of experiencing in-school bullying and cyberbullying than heterosexual youth and show that bisexual youth were more likely than gay/lesbian youth to be cyberbullied. Findings from intersectional analyses show within-group variation in bullying victimization across sexual orientation based on gender, grade, and race. Specific intersectional results and implications for in-school bullying and cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts are discussed.