Monday, November 5, 2012

Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Nov 1, 2012

Present: Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Prema Menon, Connie van Eeghen

1.                  Start Up: Post Sandy-Hurricane – at least it’s not raining.

2.                  Presentation: Kairn: final draft of article on IRR titled: “Inter-rater reliability for scoring dichotic words test responses of 6-10 year-old children.”  The group reviewed the draft and made the following comments/suggestions:
a.       Target journal: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journal (American Journal of Audiology) or Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. Content of journal is consistent with this draft. Add more explanation re: why a logistic regression was used (Bonferroni correction details irrelevant after change to analysis discussed later; Bonferroni adjusts for likelihood of statistical significance occurring by chance from multiple comparisons)
b.      State sooner that the test’s word list is novel, although the test concept is well-established.  Consider saying more about why this new word list was developed.
c.       Abstract states IRR improves over time, but this doesn’t explain the duration involved.  These were na├»ve raters for this word list; worth saying up front.
d.      A detailed discussion on the two alternative figures ensured, which was so engaging that the recorder forgot to take notes.  Decision: any words outside the 95% confidence interval should be considered for exclusion from the word list.
e.       Consider doing a clustered analysis, as there is randomness among words and randomness among children. 
f.       Logistical regression results: keep the details that show change by session, which was the significant variable in explaining change in rater performance.  Include age, sex, and hearing in the data table.  Experiment with a figure, showing the change in session over time (possibly a series of box plots).
g.      Methods decision to use percent agreement might be the place to explain why Kappa was not used.  Or a sentence, in discussion, as a strength, rather than in the Limitations section.
h.      Recheck the language for the section marked: Test Item Difficulty/Pass Proportion
i.        Ben has the best tongue twisters in the group, but Charlie came up with some good ones too.
j.        Next: redraft – and think about how to do this for ADHD children.

3.                  Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursday, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4. 
a.       Nov 8: Rodger & Connie: presentation on Strategies on Implementing BHI
b.      Nov 15: Abby: review of draft manuscript for NAS predictors article (no Ben)
c.       Nov 22: THANKSGIVING… take the day off J
d.      Nov 29: Prema: draft grant application
e.       Dec 6:
f.       Future agenda to consider:
                                                  i.      Kairn – review of draft article on IRR  
                                                ii.      Ben: budgeting exercise for grant applications; NHANES – lower female mortality for women taking birth control medications
                                              iii.      Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished); drug company funding.  Also: discuss design for PCBH clinical and cost research.  Also: Prezi demo. 
                                              iv.      Amanda: presentation and interpretation of data in articles
                                                v.      Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome on 12/6 or 12/13

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen and Kairn Kelley